From <@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU:owner-LISTSERV@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU> Wed Feb 8 03:11:58 1995 Received: from netaxs.com (root@netaxs.com [198.69.186.1]) by access.netaxs.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id DAA28221 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 1995 03:11:58 -0500 Received: from UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu (ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu [128.205.2.1]) by netaxs.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id DAA19130 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 1995 03:11:24 -0500 Message-Id: <199502080811.DAA19130@netaxs.com> Received: from UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU by UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3701; Wed, 08 Feb 95 03:10:34 EST Received: from UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UBVM) by UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0663; Wed, 8 Feb 1995 02:33:35 -0500 Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 02:33:17 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at UBVM (1.8a)" Subject: File: "GEODESIC LOG9412" To: "Christopher J. Fearnley" Status: RO ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 21:09:08 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: naked girl wisdom from Synergetics 1009.67: "What is spoken of ecology is slowly orbiting local interaction of mutual intersupport within unpremeditatedly accomplished tuning of prime drive programming of the spontaneous fall-in-ability of creatures within the critical-proximity conditions: the sugar on the table, the naked girl on the bed." -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 10:50:25 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: jitterbug, scale In <199411301848.KAA00192@desiree.teleport.com> pdx4d@teleport.com (Kirby Urner) writes: >>>A full itterbug seems to be a >> >>> VE<->icosa<->octa<->tetra<->0<->tetra<->octa<->icosa<->VE >> >>would it not also be appropriate to name the 0 above also somehow >>with VE, since he describes in detail how the Vector Equilibrium >>represents the zero-tetrahedron? (Synergetics 441.00) >I think this would be appropriate. i suppose we could call it VE0 or something, right? >The Jitterbug Transformtion seems to mean something (for Fuller) whether >juxtaposed with sizeless concepts, or the temporal ones. Some confusion >(for me) arises in that even sizeless concepts have a built-in "relative size" >within the context of the cosmic hierarchy (e.g. VE=20, octa=4, tetra=1) so >the Jitterbug is through a range of sizes here too. as sizeless forms they should legitimately be able to still have relative sizes.. because the sizeless form is the abstract analogue of the form as it appears as an "instance" at a specific scale, and if the scale is determined, the sizes become "real" and proportional to their relative sizes. >"Size/level/frequency" is meant to identify Frequency with "having >special-case time/size-realized existence as a phenomenon with >measurable energy characteristics" or something like that. i guess i have trouble with the inclusion of "frequency" with the other two, because the frequency (in Fuller's terminology) often dramatically affects the form's characteristics. for example, the VE at frequency zero is unstable, but at frequency two it's very stable. -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 10:57:37 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: the book In <199411301854.KAA01016@desiree.teleport.com> pdx4d@teleport.com (Kirby Urner) writes: >sorted alphabetically, indexed by publication and so on. I've often >thought Ed's Synergetics Dictionary would be a good place to start >an electronic Bucky archives. that item is a bit too pricey for me, but you're probably right. >PS: for someone who lives on a billiard table, a favorite locus of >Newtonian mechanics demonstrations, you have a remarkably >post-Newtonian outlook. why thank you! :) of course the billiard table i'm talking about has cows and sheep on it, and straight ditches, and dikes. cows are particularly post-Newtonian in their outlook, i gather from my long detailed discussions with them about Fuller. -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 08:58:04 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Comments: RFC822 error: Incorrect or incomplete address field found and ignored. From: HAROLD E HAMMOND Subject: Re: Language In Rob Pollock writes: > > ~ > I find it disconcerting that noone on the list wants to talk about floating > islands. Settle down Rob. I find the topic of floating islands interesting. I joined this list to learn of things just like that. Unfortunately, I am a green horn when it comes to the various fields of discussion around here, so I've been mostly just listening. Please don't you or anyone else get discouraged. The more you write, the more I learn, and with a little help from some the reference sources I've collected from this list I too hope to be participating in some of the discussions here. Harry ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 09:09:36 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: HAROLD E HAMMOND Subject: Re: Trimtabs - correction X-To: damico@gelman.circ.gwu.edu Trimtabs are one or more planes mounted on the stern of a boat below and parrallel to the water line. They are either mechanically or manually angled up or down to control the pitch of boat in the water. In other words they control the 'lift' like flaps on an airplane. Harry ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 13:02:58 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: vision, style In <199411301935.AA02850@xs1.xs4all.nl> Kirby Urner writes: >Perhaps as "rational" beings, we coordinate Universe (all of our experience) >using language, which is a kind of "coordinating system" for organizing and >conveying experience. In this sense, "comprehensively co-ordinate system" >is more the philosopher's System (capital S), metaphorically symbolized >by an IVM. yes, but language is a coordinating system (if that terminology makes any sense at all) that is quite a-spacial - has nothing to do with any particular number of physical dimensions. it just doesn't jive to make some link between spoken/written language and the IVM. >Some parts of it are clearly mathematizable. Proving that the 12, 42, 92 > around 1 arrangement (IVM packing) is actually a "densest" packing was >only proved recently, and is a very difficult proof I understand. i had also heard that - while intuitively you'd think that it was quite a trivial proof. >called that though, and no reference to Fuller). The dimensions of the >polyhedra, e.g. the A,B and T modules that's another good one - i never really could fathom the many conclusions that were made based on the A and B modules. > Your doubts probably focus more on what I'd >call the "physics" of synergetics. "Translation" in this case would involve >equations involving cgs units, various physical constants etc. my doubts are indeed centered around this. as i think of examples or encounter them in Synergetics, i'll be sure to bring them up. PS. i'm very pleased to have found a forum and such a knowledgeable person (or group of people) with which to discuss these ideas. my impression is that my (perhaps occasionally devil's-advocate-like) questions have certainly livened up the list! not so? -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 14:54:53 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Organization: Prodigy Services Company, White Plains, New York Subject: Re: Synergetics - jitterbug, scale From: Gerald de Jong Subject: Synergetics - jitterbug, scale > > Kirby Urner writes: > >A full itterbug seems to be a > > VE<->icosa<->octa<->tetra<->0<->tetra<->octa<->icosa<->VE > >thing, where one side of 0 is the inside-out (mirror image) of the > >other side. > would it not also be appropriate to name the 0 above also somehow > with VE, since he describes in detail how the Vector Equilibrium > represents the zero-tetrahedron? (Synergetics 441.00) > > This relates to Fuller's "bow tie Universe", which he > >cites as one of his earliest insights > this is presumably the idea that if something is capable of passing > through a zero size situation and coming out the "other side", then it's > appearance at the other side is a mirror image of the original. It's important, I think, to remember that the inside-out is not the mirror image. Remember the rubber glove Fuller was always using as his example: pull the rubber glove off of your left hand and you have a right-handed glove. But this glove is NOT the mirror image of the original, because it's inside-out: concave has become convex and convex has become concave. It's easier if you add the colors as Fuller did in some of his rubber-glove exmaples: red on the outside and green on the inside. Strip off a red left-handed rubber glove and you have a green right-handed rubber glove: that is, not mirror-imaged. The inside-outing tetrahedron -- and thus, the jitterbugging vector equilibrium -- works the same way. Kirby writes further: > > That's another reason we can't look at > >it as a grab-bag or inventory of loosely connected insights. There > >are these underlying themes or metaphors which really inform the whole > >of Bucky's vision. This is very true. Bucky repeated himself often -- oh, how he repeated himself -- but I've found that each repetition is like a new facet helping me to understand the whole. I'm on my second way through _Synergetics_, supplementing that with having read _Critical Path_, _Inventions_, _Operating Manual_, and _Intuition_, and cross- referencing across all of those simultaneously. The more I read, the more I understand. I've been through _Critical Path_, for example, at least ten times, but only once did I read it linearly. Since then I go back to parts of it to clarify other things of Fuller's. Reading Bucky requires reading ALL of Bucky, it seems. > also, is it not entirely possible that the topology of subatomic particles > resembles fractals (ie. Julia sets) more than shiny spheres? then there > would be no validity in the supposition that we occupy somehow the "middle" > of the scale spectrum. > it is also not at all impossible that our universe is inside of > a subatomic particle of some other universe. > one view that i very much enjoy contemplating is that Universe forms > a "scale loop", meaning that Universe might be found to be located > within each and every elementary particle in Universe. this view > would suggest that we occupy one "side" of the loop. There's a problem with relating fractals to reality, though, and it's something I've been thinking about over the last few days. The main problem is that fractals require infinity: a finite volume/area enclosed by an infinite surface/perimeter. As Bucky was fond of pointing out, though, physics has disclosed no infinities. Humans' probing of the Universe has thus far discovered only finities. So I have been asking myself a question similar to one Fuller once asked from the bow of a ship: if Nature is using fractals to design things, and fractals entail an infinitude of calculations, at what point does Nature say, ``That's close enough,'' and round off? Also, when you write ``topology of subatomic particles'' I have to wonder what you mean. Einstein already showed us that the Universe consists entirely of ``discontinuous discrete-energy events'' (to use Fuller's term, from _Synergetics_ 525.01), so what does this topology refer to? My subatomic physics is rather sketchy. And, discussing your ``scale loop,'' that would require a very different Universe than the one we've observed so far. This is not to say that such a thing is impossible -- I for one am willing to believe anything, really -- but current observations haven't borne this idea out. The macro world and the micro world are very different places, and the forces involved just don't ``scale.'' Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 10:57:16 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: HAROLD E HAMMOND Subject: Return to Sender Forgive me if I offend. All my postings to this list return to me with the message "Email Nondelivery Notice -- FAILED MESSAGE" and then when I try to post it again I get "Rejected posting to GEODESIC@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU" stating that I was attempting to post a message that I had already posted. Would someone please let me know if I am getting through? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 12:28:28 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Subject: Re: Synergetics - vision, style Sigh. Like all online discussions -- which is one of the reasons I try to post so rarely -- this discussion is wending its way away from real content/ context and into the realm of point-by-point debate. I think at this moment, while obviously I want to discuss Gerald's -- criticisms of? problems with? points of contention with? Please insert a term with no adversarial loading here -- synergetics, I worry about losing our focus on what we were originally discussing. It's easy for the important parts of conversations to get lost in the shuffle of quotes from previous posts, especially after three of us have been all over each other. (Suddenly I'm reminded of a pile of young puppies, little more than a largish mound of brown fur in a basket. It becomes difficult to visually distinguish between one puppy and the next and what is certainly a group of individuals starts to look like one mass of a creature. This discussion -- like most news threads -- is rapidly heading in that direction.) But I think, before I dive into Gerald's and Kirby's posts, I should write something that may place us on some sort of track, give us back some context; or, possibly, it will bring us into a new context. The most important thing I've learned so far from Buckminster Fuller is not my newfound hope for humanity, or the fact that humanity can be fully successful, or that geodesic domes make great houses, or that cubes are a fairly complicated way of measuring the universe. I can't even say that learning how to read Buckminster Fuller was the most important thing I've learned from Buckminster Fuller, since it's such an incredibly limited skill. The most important thing I've learned from Buckminster Fuller is about conceptual maps. What Fuller has taught me is that most people -- virtually everyone, in fact -- has a very static conceptual map which they lay on top of their experiences and through which all of their experiences are viewed. This map doesn't only apply to scientific data or government statistics or political debates; this map applies to everything a given person experiences, absolutely everything. Thus, a physicist thinks in terms of XYZ and a Shakespearean scholar thinks in terms of iambic pentameter. (Usually, I think, this conceptual map is fully formed by early adolescence and only slightly modified as time goes on.) And what Fuller wants us to do is re-evaluate our conceptual maps -- starting with recognizing the fact that we do indeed have a conceptual map -- and then start writing our own map on some kind of volitional basis. _Synergetics_ discloses Bucky's own work at revamping his map to fit experiential data, and what he challenges us with is not understanding his map but charting our own. And what follows, once you've written your own map, is that you can modify your map as you see fit, and even get to the point where you can swap maps -- that is, use the map that is appropriate for whatever task you have at hand, or whatever map you deem appropriate for whatever mood you find yourself in. I think Bucky was trying to find his own conceptual map and he wanted his map to cover the entirety of his experiences: engineering, love, life, death, physics, poetry, bowel movements, chemistry, medicine, and so on. But I don't think he wanted or expected his map to be the only map and he certainly didn't want us to buy into any static interpretations, even his own. He was continually revising his work throughout his life -- consider his ``Ever Rethinking the Lord's Prayer'' -- and he would have expected us, not only to revise and expand his ideas, but to revise and expand our own; certainly we should use his ideas, I think he would have said, but not his ideas exclusively. Overall, I believe Bucky was an iconoclast, and to round out my definition of ``iconoclast'' I give you this, neatly copied from Ambrose Bierce's _Devil's Dictionary_ (via http://www.ii.uib.no/cgi-bin/devil ): ICONOCLAST, n. A breaker of idols, the worshipers whereof are imperfectly gratified by the performance, and most strenuously protest that he unbuildeth but doth not reedify, that he pulleth down but pileth not up. For the poor things would have other idols in place of those he thwacketh upon the mazzard and dispelleth. But the iconoclast saith: ``Ye shall have none at all, for ye need them not; and if the rebuilder fooleth round hereabout, behold I will depress the head of him and sit thereon till he squawk it.'' Now, Bucky did some reedifying and pilething, but for himself; and I think he would want us to do the same. ``Do your own thinking,'' he wrote, and ``Dare to be naive.'' From: Gerald de Jong Subject: Synergetics - vision, style > >This also means it is not easily grasped by anyone versed in only one > > discipline. Reading Fuller is an art in itself. > not that i feel defensive, but is that not a mild accusation aimed > at anybody who finds it difficult to grasp the concepts, effectively > stating that they are somehow "single-minded"? Not at all. It does sound that way, however. What it means is that it's difficult to overcome the weight of progressive specialization. People who have trouble understanding Fuller's work ARE ``single-minded'' -- but this is not a fault thing or a blame thing. Generally, as an individual one has not been given control over one's own conceptual mapping; and when part of the mapping is the idea that one doesn't have a mapping and that that mapping is not modifiable, it's very difficult to assimilate new maps. We are all in some sense ``single-minded.'' Some of us were lucky enough to be gifted with maps that included the possibility of modification. Bucky, for example, was very nearsighted; and this handicap wasn't corrected until he had already been in school. Thus his early learning experiences possibly didn't program him as tightly as they might have. Also, he came from a fairly well-to-do family and could afford a certain level of luxury, allowing him a certain level of freedom of thinking. For my part, I'm fairly young -- about 24 at last count -- and so I don't have years and years of habit to break. Even so, I find the limits of my paradigms: I cannot disbelieve Darwinian evolution, for example. I can't for my life think of a another mechanism. Fuller did, but I can't quite believe his explanations. And Darwinism is relatively new; yet, like many people I know, I am somewhat contemptuous of pre- Darwinian thinking. Is it because Darwinism is the best theory to date, or is it because Darwinism is enfolded in my conceptual map? Let's remember to try not to confuse the map with the territory (or Robert Anton Wilson will be mad at us). So if you have difficulty understanding the concepts -- as opposed to simply disagreeing with them -- you're not alone, and it's not a value judgement for me to say that you're single-minded. (Also, we can't discount the fact that a lot of Fuller IS obtuse and not well-written, and that misunderstanding or failing to understand some of his work is not a matter of maps or single-mindedness at all but a problem with communication at Bucky's end of things. He left a lot purposely vague, I think, because he hadn't thought it through much himself. Sometimes I think he needed a more forceful editor.) > >Fuller believed that this was a major problem. His gift was not actually > > coming up with anything new, but making connections between existing > > things that no one else made because they were too specialized. > this is presumably your opinion, because the rather smug statement > from Intuition above "And thankfully found it" seems indicative of > his confidence in having discovered something quite new. He thought that he had indeed found something quite new, but his feeling about finding things -- as I understand it from his writings; personally he may have felt quite differently about it -- was like an explorer, not an inventor. He felt that he had literally found something new, not that he had called into existence something new. His discoveries, even in the realm of ``nature's coordinate system,'' were on the order of making connections between things. For example, Descartes discovered ``that the sum of the angles of a polyhedron is always 720o less than the number of vertexes times 360o.'' [_Synergetics_ 224.10] And I'm sure someone else worked out that the sum of the angles of a tetrahedron is always 720o. So Fuller made a connection -- and whether or not there's any point to this connection is debatable -- and said that the difference between infinitely flat -- where the sum of the angles around a polyhedron is exactly the number of vertexes times 360o -- and finitely closed is one tetrahedron. (I'm afraid that the previous bit might not have made much sense to a lot of people. It sure didn't make much sense to me the first, oh, twenty times I read it. I hope it doesn't scare anyone away.) Anyway, the point is that Bucky thought like an explorer discovering a pass through a mountain range: ``Look what I've found, an easy way to do what we need to do,'' not ``Look at how I made it easier to do what we need to do.'' > i'm for different "translations". i just doubt that it would stand > up to the test of formalization - it remains somewhere between literary > and poetic. I fully believe this. I'm willing to bet that an appreciable amount of synergetics as it stands now would not stand up to formalization. But I also think significant amounts of it would; and I get that conviction from in-depth discussions I've had with other scientifically-oriented (though not Bucky-aware) individuals. > incidentally, did you find Synergetics to be easier to read [than _Godel, Escher, Bach_]? Not having really seriously sat down with _GEB_, I can't say. I found _Synergetics_ to be the most difficut book I've ever read (and I've read Umbertos Eco's _Foucault's Pendulum_ and Wilson's _Illuminatus!_). I read it with six bookmarks and a great deal of cross-referencing. It made my brain hurt. Was it worth it? As I wrote above, it helped me to explore the possibilities of new conceptual maps. I think it was worth it (and I imagine _GEB_ will be worth it when I get around to it). > >Interesting stuff, to be sure. > certainly! but this is why people employ formal languages like > math - so that it's possible to explore the axioms of an argument > and have a stronger basis for saying "i agree, and here's why" or > "i just don't think so, and here's why". But a formal language like math only embodies logic. Unfortunately, logic only tells us whether a system is internally consistent or not; it doesn't give us any idea as to whether or not what's being modeled is being modeled accurately. Mentioning Robert Anton Wilson perhaps one time too many, he wrote a list once of the things you need to understand in order to reason effectively about the universe. I wish I had that list here. Essentially, it included logic, experience, and intuition. Only with a full complement of faculties can one make effective decisions regarding one's life. Fuller chose to leave the formalization up to others in order to open up his experiences to as wide a range of people as possible. It is certainly required, however, and I hope people are working on it. Chris. crywalt@tinman.prodigy.dev.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 10:53:21 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Subject: Re: Trimtabs - correction >Trimtabs are one or more planes mounted on the stern >of a boat below and parrallel to the water line. They >are either mechanically or manually angled up or down >to control the pitch of boat in the water. In other >words they control the 'lift' like flaps on an airplane. > >Harry > > No kidding. I always thought trim tabs were perpendicular to the water line, helping to turn the rudder itself by playing rudder to the rudder. Could their be trimtabs in both planes? Airplanes have flaps on both the wings and tail, after all. Kirby ------------------------------------------------ Kirby T. Urner email: pdx4d@teleport.com (public access node) 4D Solutions www: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ Portland (PDX), Oregon "All realities are virtual" -- KU ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 10:55:07 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Subject: Re: vision, style >PS. i'm very pleased to have found a forum and such a knowledgeable >person (or group of people) with which to discuss these ideas. my >impression is that my (perhaps occasionally devil's-advocate-like) >questions have certainly livened up the list! not so? > So. Kirby ------------------------------------------------ Kirby T. Urner email: pdx4d@teleport.com (public access node) 4D Solutions www: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ Portland (PDX), Oregon "All realities are virtual" -- KU ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 11:53:02 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Subject: Re: vision, style >In <199411301935.AA02850@xs1.xs4all.nl> Kirby Urner writes: > >>Perhaps as "rational" beings, we coordinate Universe (all of our experience) >>using language, which is a kind of "coordinating system" for organizing and >>conveying experience. In this sense, "comprehensively co-ordinate system" >>is more the philosopher's System (capital S), metaphorically symbolized >>by an IVM. > >yes, but language is a coordinating system (if that terminology makes >any sense at all) that is quite a-spacial - has nothing to do with >any particular number of physical dimensions. it just doesn't jive >to make some link between spoken/written language and the IVM. > I'll continue this thread by attaching an essay from my web site, complete with bizzaro HTML markups (which control web browsers and do not appear on screen). I realize the HTML will be a deterrent to would-be readers, unless their interested in the technology of the World Wide Web. My apologies. Essay on Thinking

On the Omnidirectional Halo

Synergetics is a geometric vision pumped full of as much significance as possible. Getting all experiences to mean something in terms of geometry might seem undoable at first, but the tack is to get a view of thinking itself, to present the thinking process in terms of a geometric model. By thinking about thinking in terms of geometry, all thought content is thereby brought within its scope.

The synergetics model of thinking is derived by analogy to the electromagnetic spectrum. It helps that we already have a vernacular wherein like-minded people are "on the same wavelength" and wherein ideas get "tuned in". In synergetics, the brain is the metaphorical "TV transceiver" wherein sense-relayed programs are presented to experience.

The electromagnetic spectrum as traditionally depicted in text books is a linear affair, from shortest to longest wavelengths. Synergetics depicts this continuum of shortest to longest as concentric spherical networks, the way we have been taught to view electrons (the ones in s-orbitals at any rate). The highest frequency systems (e.g. gamma particles) are towards the center, whereas larger scale phenomena (e.g. the portion of the spectrum visible to the naked eye) occupy middle to outer layers of the spectral onion.

To think, then, is to highlight one spherical band within the continuum, to select a channel. Higher and lower bands are "dismissed as irrelevant" because, relative to the tuned-in system, these higher and lower frequency bands are too close together, or too far apart to merit close attention.

Too close together might mean: too detailed, too trivial, too nitpicky, or literally too small to be sensed. Too far apart might mean: too general, too cosmic, or too spread apart in time and/or space to be noticably part of the visible pattern. Amidst all the transceiver brain traffic, some thoughts are too fleeting, escaping before becoming incorporated, classified or organized within a larger system. Other thoughts are too long in dawning, by which time the train of thought to which they might have attached has long ago vanished over the horizon.

The tuned system itself consists of inter-related events, points of focus. Synergetics models the relationships among our set of relevant considerations as lines of tension around the circumference of a sphere. This is because synergetics consistently associates order with the a squeezing implosive action, disorder with a radial explosive action. Radial vectors each act on their own, pointing away from a common center, whereas tension vectors collaborate, and exert leverage against the center by pulling together at 90 degrees to radiation, i.e. around a circumference.

The World Wide Web, with its page-events tensively intercohered by hypertext links, is topologically spherical in a literally geographic sense: the Web servers on which the pages are resident dot the globe, while activated links cause text to travel in a circumferential traffic pattern. Whether the Web also works to contain the entropic tendencies of conflicting cultures is a question about the integrity of its sphericity in a non-literal sense. Synergetics makes the leap from literal to non-literal in the blink of an eye -- to a view of the global weather pattern, with local highs and lows in pressure.

Text by Kirby Urner

pdx4d@teleport.com
------------------------------------------------ Kirby T. Urner email: pdx4d@teleport.com (public access node) 4D Solutions www: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ Portland (PDX), Oregon "All realities are virtual" -- KU ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 16:17:41 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kiyoshi Kuromiya Subject: Re: Syntegration Protocol X-cc: rich@cpp.pha.pa.us In-Reply-To: from "SteveW7562@AOL.COM" at Oct 10, 94 04:04:29 pm Steve W-- I don't know the term Syntegration Protocol, but much of Stafford Beer's ideas and program are described in his "Platform for Change" (John Wiley & Sons, 1975). He covers a huge range of topics in a form of "ventilated prose" that is reminiscent of RBF. His ideas and presentation are those of a generalist and seem to be a not-always-comfortable marriage of Norbert Weiner and Teilhard de Chardin, with elements of e e cummings, John Cage, Warren McCulloch, and James Grier Miller. He says that Science offers the means to a) measure and manipulate complexity through mathematics, b) design complex systems through general systems theory, c) devise viable organizations through cybernetics, d) work effectively with people through behavioural science, and e) apply all this to practical affairs through operational research. What emerges are such things as metalanguage and metaorganization. It's twenty years old, but worth a careful read. --Kiyoshi Kuromiya Forwarded message begins here: > > Could someone explain what Stafford Beer's Syntegration > Protocol is? It's referred to by Prof. Perk in his > Fuller Centennial memo. > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 17:15:44 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: HAROLD E HAMMOND Subject: Re[2]: Trimtabs - correction In Kirby Urner writes: > > No kidding. I always thought trim tabs were perpendicular > to the water line, helping to turn the rudder itself by playing > rudder to the rudder. Could their be trimtabs in both planes? > Airplanes have flaps on both the wings and tail, after all. > > Kirby > ------------------------------------------------ I suppose you could implement vertical trim tabs, but they would be basically superfluous since you could accomplish the same thing by just moving the rudder a bit more in the desired direction. Whereas trim tabs (that is those mounted horizontally) are in effect horizontal rudders. As for the need to help a rudder, On lager boats where assistance is needed in making a turn, two or more rudders are used in sync. Airplanes are a different story. They react more rapily to these types of changes. My analogous reference to airplanes was merely to illustrate the position and purpose of trim tabs on a boat. Harry ps. Kirby, thanks for letting me know I am getting thru ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 12:25:37 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: smtc5@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU Organization: University of Toledo Subject: Re: Looking for... In Article <9411271837.aa22581@cruzio.cruzio.com> Joe Moore writes: >You're right. People are born "geniuses" but get degeniused >(sp?) by the "system". He was one of the few who were undamaged >or recovered from damage. I have been attempting to assess the validity of such a statement for quite some time (about the past year-and-a-half,) and finally struck upon some evidence that strongly supports it (though it is an evaluation of the other end of the "Bell Curve.") My psychology teacher, a man who adopted three children deemed retarded from brain damage by nine "experts" in the field, now has three children of normal or better intelligence. How? One of his girls, when he adopted her, he was told was so profoundly retarded (or developmentally handicapped is the proper term now) that she would not develop beyond the age of three months during her entire life. Her sister was also said to be retarded, but not nearly so extremely. The first girl was a child of fetal alcohol syndrome (and probably a crack baby, as well,) and was left on the same spot in bed as an infant, staring at the blank ceiling for hours on end. Because of this lack of stimulation, he contends, as well as some damage from alcohol, she developed no way of dealing with the world, and so tested retarded. She as well as her sister are now in kindergarden and deal with life and school as normal children, due to high expectations (their father didn't believe the diagnosis) and the high levels of stimulation necessary for proper developement. For their brother, the situation was similar. I don't care to make rash generalizations from just a few cases, but it has now been found that children with Downs (sp?) syndrome can, with a proper program of excessive stimulation as infants, develop mentally with average or better intelligences. There are cases where such measures wouldn't work, but they seem to be few and far between. If this is true for allegedly retarded children, wouldn't the similar jumps be possible for the allegedly average man? Could the main differences between Einstein and your average case of severe retardation be a matter of environment? I don't argue that heredity determines nothing when it comes to intelligence, but I think it's a much smaller factor than most people are aware of. We are capable of nearly anything. Don't you think it's about time we started? Steve Mather ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 00:12:08 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Michael Sklaroff Subject: Re: Trimtabs - further corrections In-Reply-To: <199412011931.AA19337@mailhub.cc.columbia.edu> Trim tabs are the little rings that one pulls off the tops of cans of diet soft drinks and lite beer. Thank you. Michael Sklaroff ms401@columbia.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 21:18:44 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Isotropic Vector Matrix hello Fullerites! ever since i first encountered the beautiful omnitriangulated vector matrix i have been bothered by something. if it were indeed to be useful as a model of the structure of space then there remained some important problems. the propagation of waves in space appears in reality to be spherical, while the vector matrix model would instead have the waves propagating in the form of a cuboctahedron (the vector equilibrium form) which is hardly spherical. then i allowed myself to imagine that each vertex were moving around, restricted by the twelve spring-like relationships with its neighboring vertexes. i then wondered what form of cloud would be formed by tracing a history of movement of the vertex for a time, keeping in mind that the nearby vertexes would also be moving. due to the multiplicity of nonlinear forces acting on the vertex, it would be most sensible to consider the history as being a statistical cloud or a strange attractor - but what shape? would it not be so that the cloud should be star-shaped with six larger arms (corresponding to the six square faces of the vector equilibrium form) and eight smaller arms (the eight triangular faces)? i suspect that the arms would be very vaguely defined, more like lumps - essentially producing a "soft" octahedron. now, due to the fact that not every angle in the Isotropic Vector Matrix is 60 degrees, it is just not sufficiently symmetrical to account for truly spherical wave propagation, and as such loses its ability to model space effectively. if the vertexes (in a dynamic vector matrix!) were considered to be soft octahedra instead of resembling the centers of closest-packed spheres, would this compensate with respect to wave propagation for the irksome asymmetry of the static Isotropic Vector Matrix? i'm still not sure that this view is _useful_, but it might lead to a model of space involving discrete events that is still capable of supporting spherical wave propagation. it would be interesting to be able to modify our concept of the the shape of the microscopic events in order to balance out or re-symmetrize the macroscopic structure of the model. -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 08:34:03 CST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Tom Dosemagen Subject: Re: info on geodesic domes CAll Natural Spaces at 1 800-733-7107 and ask for their All About Domes book. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 07:05:15 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Jim Lutz Subject: World Game results? In-Reply-To: <941202043639.4c203929@Csa3.LBL.Gov> I was reading a book recently that claimed the reason the Limits to Growth (a computer simulation model of global development developed in the early '70's) predicted doom instead of sort of muddling through we've seen so far is that it didn't model learning and creativity on the part of humanity. Since the Limits to Growth and the World Game start from about the same information, resources, population, etc. etc. (I assume), the World Game might be a better model for what is possible, given human creativity and learning. I was wondering what percentage of World Games make it? In other words attain a just distribution of world resources in ecologically sustainable manner. What percentage fail? Just curious Jim Lutz ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 15:59:20 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Organization: Prodigy Services Company, White Plains, New York Subject: Re: jitterbug, scale From: Gerald de Jong Subject: jitterbug, scale [Kirby writes:] > >The Jitterbug Transformtion seems to mean something (for Fuller) whether > >juxtaposed with sizeless concepts, or the temporal ones. Some confusion > >(for me) arises in that even sizeless concepts have a built-in "relative > > size" within the context of the cosmic hierarchy (e.g. VE=20, octa=4, > > tetra=1) so the Jitterbug is through a range of sizes here too. > as sizeless forms they should legitimately be able to still have > relative sizes.. because the sizeless form is the abstract analogue > of the form as it appears as an "instance" at a specific scale, and > if the scale is determined, the sizes become "real" and proportional > to their relative sizes. Another way of putting this is that characteristics are independent of size. That is, a tetrahedron has 4 areas, 6 edges, and 4 vertexes, no matter what size that tetrahedron is -- even if it's a tetrahedron of zero size. Fuller considered the prime volumes (calculated in relation to a unit tetrahedron) to be one of those characteristics, like number of edges or number of vertexes, which are independent of size. Thus, a zero-size tetrahedron still has a volume of one in relation to a zero- size octahedron's volume of 4. > i guess i have trouble with the inclusion of "frequency" with the > other two, because the frequency (in Fuller's terminology) often > dramatically affects the form's characteristics. for example, the VE at > frequency zero is unstable, but at frequency two it's very stable. Is a two-frequency VE stable even if it's just a shell, with no interior shells? I would think not, but not having enough balls to make a two-frequency VE to test it with (amazing how hard it is to find a pile of magnetic spheres at a computer company, isn't it?), I don't know for sure. If it's not stable, then the stability of a two-frequency VE comes from the layers below -- in essence, the twelve struts Fuller wrote about, saying that they were required to stabilize the VE (which twelve struts are equivalent to two tetrahedra, he noted). I remember Bucky wrote that removing the center sphere from a one-frequency VE caused it to collapse into an icosahedron. (I hope I'm not mixing up my frequencies.) Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 13:58:49 CST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Larry Rhodes Subject: Re: Trimtabs - further corrections Actually trimtabs are little devices used by barbers to prevent getting your ears nicked during a haircut. ***************************************** ***************************************** ** ** Live Long and Prosper, ** ** Larry W. Rhodes ** lrhodes@chickasaw.astate.edu ** ***************************************** ***************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 15:15:27 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Russell Chu Subject: Tensegrity Hexapent Dome I have recently subscribed to GEODESICS. I realized this system can be equivalent to a nuclear computer, with information being received and broadcasted to all members and beyond, and that each member is a mind able to process and utilize the information locally or send new information to the nucleus and have it rebroadcasted or operate as another nucleus. So I am posting information from my application of Synergetics. Tensegrity Hexapent Dome. To my knowledge this is new information. I have made models and an actual structure of 7 feet in diameter. Its advantage is a more efficient structure and the ability to fold into a compact package. Hexa-Pent Dome was patented by Shoji Sadao and Fuller in 1970, US Patent 3,810,336. You can find it and most other Fuller patents in the book Inventions. Hexapent looks like most soccer balls, composed of pentagons and hexagons, thus its name. It is essentially the 3 frequency geodesic dome. The Tensegrity Hexapent is made up of hexagonal umbrellas replacing each hexagon of the dome. The pentagons can also be replaced by struts or umbrellas for extra rigidity but it is not necessary for structural integrity. The tensegrity hexapent dome would look like a net of cables following the edges of the pentagons and hexagons. When the hexagonal umbrellas are opened, much like regular umbrellas, the hexapent net would be taught into shape, the tensegrity hexapent dome. The hexagonal umbrellas are made of six outward struts and six inward struts, of equal length, hinged on a sliding or detachable axis/shaft with the other ends of the six pairs hinged together. Cables of the length of the edges of the hexagons are connecting the ends of the six pairs of struts. The hexagonal umbrellas are attached to each other at the corners of the hexagons. The ends of the 4 struts are attached together through hinge like connections. With appropriate hinge connectors this dome will fold to a bundle of parallel struts. You can model this structure with dowels and string. Have fun. Russ Chu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 17:58:35 PST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe Moore Subject: Re: FLOATING ISLAND CITIES In-Reply-To: <9411301459.aa16670@cruzio.cruzio.com>; from "Rob Pollock" at Nov 30, 94 3:58 pm Rob Pollock writes: > > Language is a funny thing. I guess I added my small part to the current > discussion regarding what to say and how to say it. That's great, that people > are interested in the use of language.~ > ~ > I find it disconcerting that noone on the list wants to talk about floating > islands. Only one person even responded to my post, and that was to say I was > pretty vague, and un-understandable.~ > ~ > That's life, I guess.~ > ~ > If anyone wants to talk about floating islands, and you don't want to talk to > the list, please send me an e-mail, and hopefully i will be able to discuss > things in a more coherent manner. There is a potential that a consortium of > people can be gathered so that an island can be built. A pilot project is > being planned for St Croix, US Virgin Islands, with construction hoped for in > the early 2000's.~ > ~ > If anyone has any suggestions for a more appropriate internet (or wherever) > discussion list, *please* let me know publicly, or privately.~ > ~ > -robs-~ > ~ > rob@decisionsys.com See "Basic Bucky", section 2.6 for detailed citations. I know of others who are interested also, but I'll have to dig the info out of the Bucky Database. -- JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 18:10:09 PST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe Moore Subject: Re: MISSION-EARTH In-Reply-To: <9411301921.aa05802@cruzio.cruzio.com>; from "Marc Tremblay" at Nov 30, 94 6:11 pm In the "To:" line put listserv@listserv.ncsu.edu In the body of your message put on one line only against the left margin the command subscribe mission-earth Leave the Subject line blank and don't use caps. -- JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 18:31:36 PST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe Moore Subject: Re: Return to Sender In-Reply-To: <9412010837.aa15970@cruzio.cruzio.com>; from "HAROLD E HAMMOND" at Dec 1, 94 10:57 am You're getting through. Every time I post a message I get one return to sender because one guy has a screwed up address; but your post goes through to everyone else. If not, you would be getting several hundred "Return to Sender" notices!!! -- JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 03:11:48 GMT Reply-To: Stuart Quimby Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Stuart Quimby Subject: Re: Syntegration Protocol In article , Kiyoshi Kuromiya (kiyoshi@CPP.PHA.PA.US) writes: >Steve W-- > I don't know the term Syntegration Protocol, but much of Stafford Beer's >ideas and program are described in his "Platform for Change" (John Wiley & >Sons, 1975). He covers a huge range of topics in a form of "ventilated >prose" that is reminiscent of RBF. His ideas and presentation are those >of a generalist and seem to be a not-always-comfortable marriage of Norbert >Weiner and Teilhard de Chardin, with elements of e e cummings, John Cage, Warren >McCulloch, and James Grier Miller. He says that Science offers the means to >a) measure and manipulate complexity through mathematics, b) design complex >systems through general systems theory, c) devise viable organizations through >cybernetics, d) work effectively with people through behavioural science, >and e) apply all this to practical affairs through operational research. What >emerges are such things as metalanguage and metaorganization. It's twenty years >old, but worth a careful read. > >--Kiyoshi Kuromiya > > > >Forwarded message begins here: >> >> Could someone explain what Stafford Beer's Syntegration >> Protocol is? It's referred to by Prof. Perk in his >> Fuller Centennial memo. Staford now has a new book out that deals with the culminating protocol of his research called _Beyond Dispute_. There is also a group up in Canada called Team Sytegrity that leads workshops called Sytegrations that teach business and gvmnt types new protocols of organization and power sharing. When I dig through the pile in my office and find it, I'll post the publisher of the new book and the address of Team Sytegrity. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 03:24:48 GMT Reply-To: Stuart Quimby Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Stuart Quimby Subject: Re: Isotropic Vector Matrix In article , Gerald de Jong (gerald@TACIT.HACKTIC.NL) writes: >hello Fullerites! > >ever since i first encountered the beautiful omnitriangulated vector >matrix i have been bothered by something. if it were indeed to be >useful as a model of the structure of space then there remained some >important problems. the propagation of waves in space appears in >reality to be spherical, while the vector matrix model would instead >have the waves propagating in the form of a cuboctahedron (the vector >equilibrium form) which is hardly spherical. > the VE as a model for wave motion is somthing I have thought long and hard on... actually seeing a multi-cell model of the jitterbug in motion would probably make things clearer for you. As the octa opens to the VE stage, all surrounding VE's are compressed into octa form which in turn 'bumps' the next layer into VE's and so on... When you have an actual physical model to watch the effect is totally mesmerizing, hypnotic, and dare I say, somehow almost _sexual_. The propagation of the wave can clearly be seen - and I must say watching a physical model is at least 1000 times better than ANY computer simulation! My company produces a paper jitterbug model (the Octabug) designed by the same fellow, Dennis Dreher, that designed the original dihedral hinge on Fuller's multi-cell models. Dennis actual made a moving 40 ft diameter model that was on display in Zurich a few years back, but they ignored his engeering advise on the hinges and the whole thing collapsed (no one hurt, luckily). StuQ Design Science Toys ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 03:29:43 GMT Reply-To: Stuart Quimby Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Stuart Quimby Subject: Re: World Game results? In article , Jim Lutz (jdlaps@DANTE.LBL.GOV) writes: >I was reading a book recently that claimed the reason the Limits to Growth >(a computer simulation model of global development developed in the early >'70's) predicted doom instead of sort of muddling through we've seen so >far is that it didn't model learning and creativity on the part of >humanity. Since the Limits to Growth and the World Game start from about >the same information, resources, population, etc. etc. (I assume), the >World Game might be a better model for what is possible, given human >creativity and learning. I was wondering what percentage of World Games >make it? In other words attain a just distribution of world resources in >ecologically sustainable manner. What percentage fail? > >Just curious > > Jim Lutz When I played the game the main impression left was not of winning or losing (it would take days to resolve). Everyone started with various local game-playing strategies and the main thing learned from playing (and learned VERY powerfully) was a much more intimate understanding of how multiple local strategies interact to form unpredictable global events. It was a wild and totally out of control experience and well worth the time. (and much better than a computer simulation ) StuQ Design Science Toys ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 14:10:14 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Synergetics - dimenstions, powering, etc In <199411302013.AA11839@xs1.xs4all.nl> Kirby Urner writes: >>special relativity. >No explicit dealing with Lorentz contraction type stuff, as far >as I recall, even in secondary stuff not in synergetics per se. yes, and that's puzzling to me, since physics has demonstrated very convincingly that the space-contraction/time-dilation indeed occurs. i don't yet see how these things are implicitly accommodated in Fuller's view. >>>Heighth, width and depth >>with those three coordinates, however, you can locate an object in >>static space. what are you locating if you specify four co-ordinates >>in the tetrahedrally arranged axes? >Any three edges of the tetrahedron, not all in the same plane, >define a zig-zag with implies the other three edges (creating >volume as a tetrahedron). Using 3 axes of a tetrahedron is not >to contradict that the concepts of "inside" versus "outside" appear >with the concept of "container" (space=a volume), and the >tetrahedron is the most primitive volume. yes, but if space is inherently 4-dimensional, what co-ordinate system should we be using, so as not to offend our synergetics? >But in any case, Fuller does not use (x,y,z) notation or equate a fourth >coordinate with time. he avoids mathematical discussion, and so while he forcefully criticises the standard (x,y,z)-related coordinate systems, he does not offer an alternative coordinate system to the point of illustrating its use. >>i fail to see how >>separating a number out into its prime factors so elegantly elicidates >>five-dimensionality and such. >I think you're refering to the "Numerology" sections, the "indigs" >and all that. I wasn't thinking of that section when I wrote about >powers vs dimensions. On dimensions, what do you think of >using triangles and tetrahedra to model 2nd and 3rd powering, >vs squares and cubes. no, i was not referring to the numerology (i'm afraid i had very little use for those, to be honest). i'm referring to his talk about the forms to model "powering". despite reading it many times, i failed to get the point. >Fuller seems to equate energy >vectors with mass x velocity (mv), but of course this is not standard >physics. Making mv=energy was played with in the early days, but >now energy units are in units of m v v. he persistenly bases his models on what physics teaches us, but on points like this one, he seems imprecise. > The fact that two ideas >occur in the same brain relates them, via the thinker (not to get too >Cartesian-cogito-ish). but the relationship need not be meaningful. baby-chair and fern and charcoal are ideas in my brain - completely unrelated, really. >I'm not making any animations available via my web site yet. Just >lots of stills. Of course we have kits and models to get our hands >dirty with (real glue, yuk!) in the meantime. i'll be ordering a few of them from BFI, to add to the ones i've made myself. by the way, i've built a number of cool models using glass tubes of a few inches in length (i bought 500 at a surplus store) and spools of elastic thread from the sewing store. our apartment is full of forms - from vector equilibrium to 2-frequency icosahedra, to tetrahelixes. -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 14:32:06 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Synergetics - jitterbug, scale In <199412011604.AA25496@xs1.xs4all.nl> Chris Rywalt writes: >It's important, I think, to remember that the inside-out is not the mirror > image. Remember the rubber glove Fuller was always using as his > example: pull the rubber glove off of your left hand and you have a > right-handed glove. But this glove is NOT the mirror image of the > original, because it's inside-out: concave has become convex and > convex has become concave. yes, indeed. very good point. >Reading Bucky requires reading ALL of Bucky, it seems. oh no! where can i find the time? :) >> also, is it not entirely possible that the topology of subatomic particles >> resembles fractals (ie. Julia sets) more than shiny spheres? >There's a problem with relating fractals to reality, though, and it's something > I've been thinking about over the last few days. The main problem > is that fractals require infinity: a finite volume/area enclosed by > an infinite surface/perimeter. As Bucky was fond of pointing out, > though, physics has disclosed no infinities. Humans' probing of the > Universe has thus far discovered only finities. i'm not so sure about that. i think that Bucky's main beef was with the use of coordinate systems that were too "flat" and thereby introduced infinity far off in the distance. i know you've already got a lot to read , but i'd suggest that you also make your way through "Chaos" by James Gleick (if you haven't already). our recent probing into the universe has indeed revealed infinities - in the simplest of nonlinear systems. it would seem that even a jolted pendulum exhibits chaotic behavior - which is probably best described as extreme (nearly infinite?) sensitivity to microscopic conditions. >if Nature is using fractals to design things, and > fractals entail an infinitude of calculations, at what point does > Nature say, ``That's close enough,'' and round off? i'd guess that nature never gets tired of calculating, since She's got access to the most incomprehensibly large massively parallel machine - Universe. does She have to round it off? >Also, when you write ``topology of subatomic particles'' I have to wonder what > you mean. Einstein already showed us that the Universe consists > entirely of ``discontinuous discrete-energy events'' well, it was iffy terminology to start with. suffice it to say that these events appear from "above" (from much much larger scale) to be discrete, but nobody is saying that they are so down deep. in fact quantum mechanics has surrendered itself to being satisfied with a "probability wave" description of quantum events (in other words: uhh.. the particle might end up here, or there, but we'll just have to wait and see), which does nothing to exclude the possibility of a complex (infinitely so?) myriad of events behind the quantum events. who knows what a subatomic particle looks like from the inside out? >And, discussing your ``scale loop,'' that would require a very different > Universe than the one we've observed so far. This is not to say that > such a thing is impossible -- I for one am willing to believe anything, > really -- but current observations haven't borne this idea out. > The macro world and the micro world are very different places, and > the forces involved just don't ``scale.'' can you expand on that? i sort of visualize a situation where each particle sort of stores inside of it every interaction that it ever experiences, and as a result, the entire experience of Universe would be stored "holographically" in all the many discrete particles - each of them recording it's own point of view. only the sum of all these experiences would be able to make up Universe itself. of course i'm just "talking out of my neck" as we say in Dutch. :) -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 06:30:21 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kevin Sahr Organization: Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon Subject: Re: FULLER'S COMPUTER In article , Gerald de Jong wrote: > ...on-the-mark comments and questions trimmed... > >i hope that i'm not considered to be "out of line" by suggesting such >things in this group. i also hope that replies don't simply suggest >that i read further or read again until i get it. I consider all of the issues you raised very much to the point! While I enjoy Fuller's philosophy very much, I think the greatest of his contributions is the gold-mine of generalized principles waiting to be understood and applied to specific computational and scientific problems. Unfortunately, I too am stuck at the stage of trying to figure out how to do this, and the few times I've posted questions like yours (though never as well-worded!) I've been dissapointed with the discussions raised. >to make the brilliant and fresh ideas palatable for the scientific >community, someone will have to start nailing it down. Slowly I'm starting to see the appearance of some Fuller-like ideas in the computational sciences. For instance, there is a growing swell of interest in doing 2D cellular automata on hexagonal rather than cartesian grids. But I have to admit that I find this sort of slow advance rather frustrating; I wondered why the hell people were using cartesian grids the first time I saw Life years ago! Years of research that now must be duplicated the way it should have been done in the first place. And then look at 3D cell-based simulations, like hydro- codes. They're still using cartesian coordinates, where the waves propagate a hell of a lot less spherically than they would in the IVM. People will realize this and migrate to the IVM for this work eventually. But when you see where the technology is at, then it becomes rather despairing to hope for answers to questions like yours which strike to the real heart of the matter: while just using the IVM as a direct replacement for cartesian coordinates is a step in the right direction, I think it misses the real subtleties of Fuller's conception, which I occasionally glimpse far-off but am in general clueless about. Similarly, as part of research I'm currently participating in we're looking into Bucky's ideas concerning the subdivision of the sphere; we're trying to apply this knowledge to the construction of a global spatial database. Again, it's a real step in the right direction (compared to the majority of global models now, which are based on the longitude/latitude graticule; "BLECH!" to quote Calvin), but I can glimpse incredible potential in the jitterbug and the IVM to take this work to another level entirely, but unfortunately I seem to lack the vision to make that happen. I have to agree with you about the vagueness of the recent computational articles, but I don't want to discourage their authors, because I truly believe the things they're writing about are possible, I just think there's a bit of a chasm to be crossed between what they've written and useful pieces of code. But that's the beauty of computing; anyone with the right idea and enough money to buy an old PC (maybe $100?) can quiet all the scoffing any time they wish to... >i'd love to >be able to spend the time to build a tool for the purpose of >coming to terms with the structural language employed in Synergetics. >i find it difficult to puzzle about some magical new synergetic >computer, when we haven't even yet built the "Lotus 123" of structural >dynamics. don't we more urgently need a generation of kids at play >in a little virtual world of synergetics geometry software? Sounds like a great idea to me! Where's the BFI at? Too busy scrounging for the almighty $$ to do some real work in the name of Bucky? Sorry I couldn't give more informative answers to your queries. I'm waiting anxiously to see if someone else can! >-- > ________________ ___________ _________________ >____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) Kevin -- //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // // // Kevin Sahr // // Research Associate/Programmer Wilkinson Hall, Room 204 // ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 10:13:05 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Synergetics - vision, style In <199412011854.AA17861@xs1.xs4all.nl> Chris Rywalt w rites: >The most important thing I've learned from Buckminster Fuller is about > conceptual maps. What Fuller has taught me is that most people -- > virtually everyone, in fact -- has a very static conceptual map which > they lay on top of their experiences and through which all of their > experiences are viewed. one's "point of view" perhaps. i assume that the ideal is that we have an omni-point-of-view. >And what Fuller wants us to do is re-evaluate our conceptual maps -- starting > with recognizing the fact that we do indeed have a conceptual map -- > and then start writing our own map on some kind of volitional basis. > _Synergetics_ discloses Bucky's own work at revamping his map to fit > experiential data, and what he challenges us with is not understanding > his map but charting our own. his "map" consists mainly of structural geometry and numerology. not quite enough to justify pidgeonholing all other intellectuals as single-minded specialists. i doubt that he was particularly adept at understanding the psychology of other people - though he was an expert on his own. >> >This also means it is not easily grasped by anyone versed in only one >> > discipline. Reading Fuller is an art in itself. >> not that i feel defensive, but is that not a mild accusation aimed >> at anybody who finds it difficult to grasp the concepts, effectively >> stating that they are somehow "single-minded"? >Not at all. It does sound that way, however. What it means is that it's > difficult to overcome the weight of progressive specialization. People > who have trouble understanding Fuller's work ARE ``single-minded'' -- > but this is not a fault thing or a blame thing. it's not their fault that they're single-minded, how could they know? i dunno. i still find the statement quite condescending. keep in mind that it just might be so that Bucky was (in a number of areas about which he wrote) a bit thwacked in the head, and the people who find it difficult just might be the ones who are thinking sensibly. >We are all in some sense ``single-minded.'' Some of us were lucky enough to be > gifted with maps that included the possibility of modification. it's not a black-and-white issue. >So if you have difficulty understanding the concepts -- as opposed to simply > disagreeing with them -- you're not alone, and it's not a value > judgement for me to say that you're single-minded. really? well, my single-mindedness probably prevents me from understanding how they can be not value judgements. :) > is not a matter of maps or single-mindedness at all but a problem with > communication at Bucky's end of things. He left a lot purposely vague, > I think, because he hadn't thought it through much himself. Sometimes > I think he needed a more forceful editor.) that's better. :) >> i'm for different "translations". i just doubt that it would stand >> up to the test of formalization - it remains somewhere between literary >> and poetic. >I fully believe this. I'm willing to bet that an appreciable amount of > synergetics as it stands now would not stand up to formalization. > But I also think significant amounts of it would; and I get that > conviction from in-depth discussions I've had with other > scientifically-oriented (though not Bucky-aware) individuals. that's why i'm so interested in those who have taken the "formalizable" parts and spent time working them out. >But a formal language like math only embodies logic. Unfortunately, logic > only tells us whether a system is internally consistent or not; it > doesn't give us any idea as to whether or not what's being modeled is > being modeled accurately. are you saying that it's possible to make a model that's not internally consistent, yet models something accurately? -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 10:34:15 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: zero tetrahedron In <199412030101.AA15162@xs1.xs4all.nl> Chris Rywalt writes: >Another way of putting this is that characteristics are independent of size. > That is, a tetrahedron has 4 areas, 6 edges, and 4 vertexes, no matter > what size that tetrahedron is -- even if it's a tetrahedron of zero > size. zero-size goes too far, doesn't it? it has no areas, no edges and perhaps one vertex (if you're lucky). the most you can say about it is that (for continuity) it possesses the _symmetries_ of both the inside-out and outside-in tetrahedra. -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 12:34:10 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Ben Rosenkrans <5142030@SUNYBROOME.EDU> Organization: Broome Community College, Binghamton, NY, USA Subject: Re: info on geodesic domes Tom, Thanks for the number to call about the book. I appreciate it. Ben Rosenkrans ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 03:46:37 GMT Reply-To: Stuart Quimby Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Stuart Quimby Subject: Re: FULLER'S COMPUTER >In article , >Gerald de Jong wrote: >> >>i'd love to >>be able to spend the time to build a tool for the purpose of >>coming to terms with the structural language employed in Synergetics. >>i find it difficult to puzzle about some magical new synergetic >>computer, when we haven't even yet built the "Lotus 123" of structural >>dynamics. don't we more urgently need a generation of kids at play >>in a little virtual world of synergetics geometry software? > I couldn't agree more that kids need to be exposed to Fuller's work, but I must admit I have great trouble with the "virtual" part. I use computers intensively in product design, graphics, computation, and programing so I doubt I qualify as a 'Luddite'. (broad sweeping generalization follows) What bothers me is the willingness of a group like this - concerned with the multi-dimensional approach of Fuller to be so totally preoccupied with reducing that vision to a flat 100 sq. in. of 2D! Enough with the computers already! I love to see computer visulizations as much as anybody, but there's a whole 4D WORLD just to the right, left, top, bottom, front, and back of that little screen. I realize from reading your other posts, Gerald, that you've been making models yourself, and I don't mean this rant to be aimed at you. But I see this intoxication with computers in our Western cultures to be at least partially at odds with the scope of Fuller's vision. Computers hold great potential, but they're unquestioned acceptance in this 'brave new electronic world' needs to be seriously examined. Law of conservation (heavily paraphrased) "Whenever somthing's gained, somthing's lost". I'm new to the net so I've been hanging back and not posting much yet. I've also had reservations about talking about my own company 'cause I didn't want to 'come on' too commercial. But what I do IS of direct interest (I hope) to most in this group so here comes a little ad. My company (Design Science Toys) makes a wide variety of models, construction toys, puzzles, and more that mainly relate to Fuller's work. Anyone interested in catalogs can email their physical address to me directly. Stuart Quimby Design Science Toys ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 22:30:47 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: FULLER'S COMPUTER In <199412030841.AA22490@xs1.xs4all.nl> Kevin Sahr writ es: >>to make the brilliant and fresh ideas palatable for the scientific >>community, someone will have to start nailing it down. >Slowly I'm starting to see the appearance of some Fuller-like ideas >in the computational sciences. For instance, there is a growing swell >of interest in doing 2D cellular automata on hexagonal rather than >cartesian grids. apparently the hexagonal grid in 2D is symmetrical enough to allow cellular automata to simulate 2D fluid flow, which is brilliant! the Iso Vector Matrix, however, just isn't symmetrical enough to allow the cellular automata models to simulate the flow. apparently there's another dimension required. i'd like to know about how to make it work in 3D, and maybe the jitterbug transformations would do the trick - as an extension of the IVM. >first place. And then look at 3D cell-based simulations, like hydro- >codes. They're still using cartesian coordinates, where the waves >propagate a hell of a lot less spherically than they would in the IVM. go figure! >Similarly, as part of research I'm currently participating in >we're looking into Bucky's ideas concerning the subdivision of >the sphere; we're trying to apply this knowledge to the >construction of a global spatial database. i also wondered at one point if there were a sensible mapping between 1D space (computer memory) and a triangulated sphere, but i couldn't come up with anything nice. >"BLECH!" to quote Calvin), but I can glimpse incredible potential >in the jitterbug and the IVM to take this work to another level >entirely, but unfortunately I seem to lack the vision to make >that happen. maybe only the kids who've played with the models all their childhood will be able to take that step. >>i'd love to >>be able to spend the time to build a tool.. >Where's the BFI at? Too busy >scrounging for the almighty $$ to do some real work in the name of >Bucky? they're at bfi@aol.com and yup, i've got a wife and kid - therefore a job. drag. :/ -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 09:44:46 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gary Lawrence Murphy Subject: Re: Synergetics - dimension, powering, etc In-Reply-To: <199412040443.AA25307@charon.osc.on.ca> (message from Kirby Urner on Wed, 30 Nov 1994 12:49:07 -0800) It's my understanding that Fuller did incorporate time, going even further to incorporate temperature and all manner of coordinate axes which elsewhere appear only in gauge symmetry physics. These are the "nine dimensionality" associated, and modelled tactually by the VE. Regarding Lorenz contractions, since Fuller's geometry is topologically based, wouldn't contractions vanish? Einstein's general relativity shows the preservation of physical laws in all frames of reference and Fuller's geometry could be taken as a model of those laws, rather than a model of the appearance of those laws in the given frame. Also, in Synergetics, the matrix of close-packed spheres is described as dynamic with angle and distance (in someone else's perspective, an angle) being valved, thus could what Einstein wrote about the differentials of local distances in a gravitational field could describe valving imposed by interference by the between-body gravitational tethers? All the more reason why we need your animations, Kirby ;-) Gary Lawrence Murphy ------------------------- garym@charon.osc.on.ca Sr.Scientist, Technology ------ http://www.osc.on.ca/people/Gary.html Research/Exhibit Planning --------------- voice: (416) 429-4100 x2215 Ontario Science Centre ------- 770 Don Mills Road, North York M3C 1T3 -------------------------------------- nothing surpasses the ordinary ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 13:00:09 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Rjbono Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Subject: Re: Looking for... In article , smtc5@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes: >We are capable of nearly anything. Don't you think it's about time >we started? You got that right! Rick ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 10:22:39 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Isotropic Vector Matrix In <199412030916.AA24962@xs1.xs4all.nl> Stuart Quimby w rites: >the VE as a model for wave motion is somthing I have thought long >and hard on... actually seeing a multi-cell model of the >jitterbug in motion would probably make things clearer for you. i'm sure it would. i'm left to my imagination, which hasn't yet been able to show me a picture of a multi-cell situation. >As the octa opens to the VE stage, all surrounding VE's are >compressed into octa form which in turn 'bumps' the next layer >into VE's and so on... you're making me jealous! i would love to see this thing in action. are you saying that the pulsating of one octa <--> VE phase causes a more-or-less spherical wave out from that point? does this allow for multiple sources of disturbance in the matrix? > When you have an actual physical model to >watch the effect is totally mesmerizing, hypnotic, and dare I say, >somehow almost _sexual_. now you're _really_ making me jealous! :) >My company produces a paper jitterbug model (the Octabug) designed by >the same fellow, Dennis Dreher, that designed the original dihedral >hinge on Fuller's multi-cell models. the Octabug is really only one cell, right? can they be combined into more cells? -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 22:36:42 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: FULLER'S COMPUTER In <199412040519.AA16184@xs1.xs4all.nl> Stuart Quimby w rites: >(broad sweeping generalization follows) What bothers me is the >willingness of a group like this - concerned with the >multi-dimensional approach of Fuller to be so totally preoccupied >with reducing that vision to a flat 100 sq. in. of 2D! on the one hand i fully agree. but my idea for a program was to begin with stereo-vision and motion - so that doesn't quite qualify as 2D. >Enough with the computers already! I love to see computer >visulizations as much as anybody, but there's a whole 4D WORLD >just to the right, left, top, bottom, front, and back of that >little screen. eventually we'll be able to slip on the old VR helmet and a couple of gloves and fly through a pulsating folding-enfolding jitterbugging vector matrix. i'd be tempted to rate that one step above being able to walk around a physical model. imagine crawling inside! >I realize from reading your other posts, Gerald, that you've been >making models yourself, and I don't mean this rant to be aimed at >you. it's not taken personally at all (he says as he finishes the last few cocktail sticks in a 2-frequency icosa sphere for in the livingroom). > But I see this intoxication with computers in our Western >cultures to be at least partially at odds with the scope of >Fuller's vision. i think it's a tricky phase that we're in - where the goofy keyboards and geeky little screens prevent us from surrounding ourselves with the imaginary models we create and getting our hands dirty with them. this phase will pass pretty soon as basic VR gear gets cheap. > had reservations about talking about my own >company 'cause I didn't want to 'come on' too commercial. very polite of you. but that won't keep me from ordering a few things. if you folks had a storefront in my city i'd probably buy the shelves empty! does your company need a European connection? . :) -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 13:14:17 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Synergetics - dimension, powering, etc In <199412041445.AA08054@xs1.xs4all.nl> Gary Lawrence Murphy writes: >It's my understanding that Fuller did incorporate time, going even >further to incorporate temperature and all manner of coordinate >axes which elsewhere appear only in gauge symmetry physics. These >are the "nine dimensionality" associated, and modelled tactually >by the VE. do you have references in Synergetics, or perhaps other works? >Regarding Lorenz contractions, since Fuller's geometry is >topologically based, wouldn't contractions vanish? could you please take the time to explain this further? >[General Relativity:] Fuller's geometry could be taken as >a model of those laws, rather than a model of the appearance of >those laws in the given frame. i hardly know what to ask.. uh.. what is then, in Fuller's geometry, a representation of the laws in a given frame? > Also, in Synergetics, the matrix >of close-packed spheres is described as dynamic with angle and >distance (in someone else's perspective, an angle) being >valved, thus could what Einstein wrote about the differentials of >local distances in a gravitational field could describe >valving imposed by interference by the between-body gravitational >tethers? what is "valving"? (feel free to give a reference to Fuller) i'm having a difficult time wrestling with this posting, though it sounds fascinating. perhaps my physics training is inadequate. -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 13:30:06 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dome Fan Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Subject: Re: info on geodesic domes You might also call Timberline Geodesics at 1-800-366-3466 or 1-800-DOME-HOME ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 16:26:34 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Subject: Re: Synergetics - jitterbug, scale From: Gerald de Jong Subject: Synergetics - jitterbug, scale > i know you've already got a lot to read , but i'd suggest that > you also make your way through "Chaos" by James Gleick (if you haven't > already). our recent probing into the universe has indeed revealed > infinities - in the simplest of nonlinear systems. it would seem that > even a jolted pendulum exhibits chaotic behavior - which is probably > best described as extreme (nearly infinite?) sensitivity to microscopic > conditions. I haven't read Gleick's book (again, I've been meaning to) but I have done a lot of research into fractals. I still don't recall that science has revealed infinities, since the pendulum as a system is finite, as in fact all systems are finite, Universe being the biggest system. As far as sensitivity to conditions, this cannot be infinite either, as the conditions themselves are finite -- packaged quanta -- and thus everything occurs in finite steps. > i'd guess that nature never gets tired of calculating, since She's > got access to the most incomprehensibly large massively parallel > machine - Universe. does She have to round it off? Universe is still a finite machine. So, yes, Nature does have to round off. If pi goes on infinitely, and Nature is using pi to calculate bubbles, then for every bubble Nature creates She is either calculating infinitely -- obviously not the case, or we would never see a bubble, since as much as I would like to stick around that long I doubt I'll manage it -- or She is rounding off somewhere down the line. > can you expand on that? [``That'' being my contention that our universe is > not just a sub-atomic particle in some larger universe and that there aren't > any sub-atomic universes lurking smaller than ours.] Yes. QED forces -- weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, and so on -- are very limited by distance. Thus, assuming humans have made a fairly comprehensive list of forces acting in Universe, only gravity is capable of long-range action. Therefore, if we are indeed just a sub- atomic particle of a much larger universe, there must be some forces at work which are both very long-range and very pervasive and thus very nearly impossible to detect (much like the gravitational attraction between two brass balls on planet Earth: the Earth's gravitational field so overwhelms the gravitational fields of the two balls, those fields are nearly unnoticeable). As I said, I'm willing to believe that this is possible; but I also know of no observations that would support such an idea. (I also wonder of how much use such an idea would be; almost by definition, such a conclusion would be meaningless to humans. But, I suppose the weak nuclear force is also nearly meaningless except insofar as it increases humans' understanding of Universe.) > of course i'm just "talking out of my neck" as we say in Dutch. :) In _Stranger in a Strange Land_, Jubal Harshaw calls it speaking ex cathedra from his belly button. I'm very good at it -- so good, sometimes people take me seriously. Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 16:27:26 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Subject: Re: Synergetics - vision, style You're exactly right, Gerald, when you say, ``it's not their fault that they're single-minded, how could they know?'' The term ``single-minded'' is in no way intended to be condescending, even though you may find it so. At least, *I* don't mean it that way. I recall at this point what Bucky wrote in _Critical Path_ (which I will not quote but paraphrase, since I stopped lugging my copy of _Critical Path_ around in favor of lugging around Heinlein's _Stranger in a Strange Land_ and -- yes, I decided to get to it -- Hofstadter's _Godel, Escher, Bach_), which was this: there are no good or bad people. If you recognize yourself or anyone you know in this book, remember that there's no judgement being made. So yes, they're single-minded and they have no way of knowing that they're not. No pity or recrimination is involved. They just are like I just am. And you're right again in saying that this is not a black-and-white issue. It isn't. Nothing is. Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 16:27:29 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Subject: Re: Synergetics - vision, style Is it possible for us to have a model that is internally inconsistent and yet still accurately models reality? I think so. If you take, for example, physics, we have a model of the Universe which is not internally consistent but which models things quite accurately. There is still no bridge between gravity and quantum electrodynamics, and yet both model different ``views'' of human experiences very well. But I thik we'd all have to agree that the dividing line between a ``QED view'' and a ``gravity view'' is, as far as the Universe is concerned, non-existent. So humans arbitrarily draw a dividing line at the approximate place where the two theories become internally inconsistent with each other. In fact, humans' overall model of entire Universe is, taken as a whole -- including sociology, chemistry, biology, bowel movements, and basically the Whole Enchilada -- internally inconsistent in many places. But, again, we draw dividing lines where there are inconsistencies and call them separate models. But -- and I think this is important,-- they're NOT separate models. We are, as Bucky was fond of quoting, ``setting in order the facts of experience.'' The facts of experience admit no departments except those seen by humans through their conceptual maps: again, Nature does not call a department head meeting to decide what to do when a boy throws a stone in a pond. Think for a moment about the practice of medicine. Medicine is concerned with a multitude of models: chemical, biological, sociological, and so on. And the most important fact I get from reading medical literature is this: no one really knows what's going on. All their models are inaccurate and inconsistent. No one of their models is capable of explaining the multiplicity of experienced reality. And so doctors rely very heavily on empirical evidence. They have to, because lives are in the balance. People are dying of things all the time and in order to get something that works, doctors are willing to forgo models in large part. Their models are such a mess because the models humans have built up are so inconsistent with each other, and the practice of medicine cuts across all of them, ignorant of the separate departments into which we humans have broken Universe. So what we have operating here, at varying degrees of accuracy, is any number of sub-models of Universe, which models vary in their internal consistency (how well the model agrees with itself), and two types of external consistency (how well the model agrees with other models and how well the model agrees with reality). So, yes, I would say that s model can be internally inconsistent and yet model reality -- to some limited extent. Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 16:28:26 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Subject: Re: zero tetrahedron From: Gerald de Jong Subject: zero tetrahedron > [A] zero-size [tetrahedron] goes too far, doesn't it? it has no areas, no > edges and perhaps one vertex (if you're lucky). the most you can say about > it is that (for continuity) it possesses the _symmetries_ of both > the inside-out and outside-in tetrahedra. No, and that's the point. It has areas -- four of zero size -- and edges -- six of zero size -- and vertexes -- four of zero size. Fuller was defining what he meant by the tetrahedron being conceptual regardless of size. A tetrahedron can be of zero size but still have these characteristics because these characteristics are conceptual and thus timeless, sizeless and eternal, while size is special-case and thus has time, size and duration. Just like the isotropic vector matrix, which is conceptual. Reality is asymmetric and special-case, and thus the isotropic vector matrix does not exist in reality; however, it is the equlibrium relative to which reality's fluctuations occur. A zero-size tetrahedron cannot exist -- it is entirely conceptual -- but it is the equilibrium relative to which reality oscillates. I imagine knitting needles, three of them, laid out as the edges of a triangle. They overlap at the vertexes; in fact, Fuller would define the vertexes as those overlappings. So imagine them laid out so that all of the needles overlap thusly (cheesy ASCII graphic follows): _ _ \\ // \\// \\ //\\ // \\ :==//========: // \\ ~ ~ Now, if you slide the needles toward each other, the triangle formed by their intersection shrinks; then, there comes a point where the needles can get no closer to each other and they twist, becoming perpendicular to each other (much like xyz coordinate axes). If you then start to pull them apart, you'll get another triangle; and if you allow the inertia of the needles to follow-through, the second triangle will be the inside-out of the first: _ _ \\ // \\// // //\\ // \\ :========\\==: // \\ ~ ~ The center around which the needles twist is the zero-size triangle. Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 16:46:13 PST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe Moore Subject: Re: MISSION-EARTH X-To: Lieberman@aol.com In-Reply-To: <941203033126_4556537@aol.com>; from "Lieberman@aol.com" at Dec 3, 94 3:31 am Lieberman@aol.com writes: > > I think I missed something somewhere... could you clue me in on what mission > earth is about? I think they are trying to set up a global computer simulation to assess the feasability of, for instance, Fuller's proposal for a global electrical storage and distribution grid. Maybe someone out there can post a more detailed description of their goals. -- JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 17:00:42 PST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe Moore Subject: Re: Tensegrity Hexapent Dome In-Reply-To: <9412022145.aa13748@cruzio.cruzio.com>; from "Russell Chu" at Dec 2, 94 3:15 pm Hey Russ, Great stuff! How 'bout posting some of your old articles from "Synergetica"? -- JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 17:12:25 PST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe Moore Subject: URNER'S WWWEB SITE Kirby, I finally got around to learning how to use my text-only Web browser (LYNX) to g(o) to a specific Internet address such as your World Wide Web site: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ It's great! I downloaded every page, printed it out, read it and put it in my "Urner" binder. (Too bad I couldn't see the pictures, etc., but I could have downloaded them. Someday I'll have a Pentium with all the bells and whistles.) Judging from your content plus your ongoing dialog about Synergetics, you definitely have done your homework! Do you know of any other sites that have Bucky stuff? Could you link a word or phrase to the Geodesic list? What about other Bucky groups like World Game, GENI and BFI? What about references? What are your plans? If you need a picture, let me know. Maybe I can help. I still have a lot of stuff that I haven't uploaded yet. -- JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 20:51:28 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Nick Consoletti Subject: Re: BASIC BUCKY In-Reply-To: <9411260843.AA01706@mx5.u.washington.edu> Re:Synergetics II R, Buckminster Fuller 2,1 Quark Models Discovery of "Top" Quark completes a unified model Holy Grail of physics was a misnomer ANON 12/05/94 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 23:45:08 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Rjbono Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Subject: Synergetics, energy, & soap bubbles Well here are my two cents worth on recent postings by Kirby, Chris & Gerald plus a few choice bits of my own.... from Kirby... >Fuller seems to equate energy >vectors with mass x velocity (mv), but of course this is not standard >physics. Making mv=energy was played with in the early days, but >now energy units are in units of m v v. In classical physics, energy, like work, is considered a scalar quantity; the units of energy are the same as those of work. These units may be ergs, joules, watt-hours, foot-pounds, or foot-poundals, depending on the system of units being used. In modern physics, energy and the three components of linear momentum (i.e. p=m x v, a vector quantity) are thought of as different aspects of a single four-dimensional vector quantity, much as time is considered to be one aspect of the four-dimensional space-time continuum. Bucky's "action" = vectors = mass x velocity = momentum = polyhedral edge = size = an energy event. As such it is inherently terminaled. Time is taken into account by this definition. (It is interesting to note that there exists a conservation of momentum along with energy, mass and charge). >> i'd guess that nature never gets tired of calculating, since She's >> got access to the most incomprehensibly large massively parallel >> machine - Universe. does She have to round it off? from Chris... >Universe is still a finite machine. So, yes, Nature does have to round off. > If pi goes on infinitely, and Nature is using pi to calculate bubbles, > then for every bubble Nature creates She is either calculating > infinitely -- obviously not the case, or we would never see a bubble, > since as much as I would like to stick around that long I doubt I'll > manage it -- or She is rounding off somewhere down the line. It is my thinking that the principles behind nature's self-organized, structuring are wickedly simple. They are based on minimization of energy (i.e. energy events, vectors) while balancing the constraints imposed by space. The soap bubble has a surface that is a geodesic tensegrity. The energy events on the surface (i.e. surface tension energy) are trying to balance against other energies present and the constraints imposed by space. Soap films tend to contract over a minimum area while the energy is being minimized. I would propose the following... The Soap Bubble Scenario 1.) Energy must first be available from the "cosmic pool". This is likely to be in several different forms. 2.) An impetus is applied by some external agent (e.g. a child's breath). The scenario begins... 3.) Components precess and fall back upon each other in critical proximity. 4.) Excess energy is transfered elsewhere (i.e. as heat to the environment), while system energy minimizes. Structure begins to form based on energy and spatial constraints. 5.) The surface film is composed of omnitriangulated energy events (i.e. vectors). 6.) Structure is complete when energy events & spatial constraints balance. This is the halting condition. No pi required! No round-off! Universe isn't as much a computer as a balance scale. 7.) The scenario terminates upon "bursting" which returns the energies to the "cosmic pool" The shape of structures are inherent. Synergetics has identified many of them. The commonality of molecular structures such as DNA, amino acids etc. is due to the fact that they have no way else to form given their special case conditions. Self-organization is an illusion. Structures form as result of "least action" within spatial constraints. Energy has shape as does space. The missing piece that connects physical reality to synergtics reality is this item. Paraphrasing Loeb, Space is not a passive vacuum and imposes structural constraints on matter (i.e. energy events) that inhabits it. The bridge is the structural/energetic (synergetic) aspects. The key is identifying all of the spatial constraints. look up the following article if you have a chance: The Geometry of Soap Films and Soap Bubbles, Scientific American July 1976. Model builders will enjoy reproducing some of the forms many of which they will have seen first while reading Synergetics. ============================ Aside: I was thinking about a few other things that led to some other thinking in a critical proximity sort of way. Bucky defines time intervals, delta t = the negative Universe phase of the tetrahedrons oscillation. Time intervals are essentially disconnects from eternity. This oscillation from positive to negative phase changes occur constantly at the quantum level providing not only time but also life. Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle can be written as delta E x delta t = h where h=planck's constant = 6.6 x 10^-27. (gm x s / cm^2). Bucky noted that the 6.6ness comes from the volume of the VE / volume of the cube (20/3 = 6.6). From this is conceptually easy to see where the uncertainty principle comes from as the delta t comes from the negative phase of Universe oscillation which we have no direct access to. This also makes sense when examining quantum gravity and properties of the energetic vacuum. ================================== from Gerald... >ever since i first encountered the beautiful omnitriangulated vector >matrix i have been bothered by something. if it were indeed to be >useful as a model of the structure of space then there remained some >important problems. the propagation of waves in space appears in >reality to be spherical, while the vector matrix model would instead >have the waves propagating in the form of a cuboctahedron (the vector >equilibrium form) which is hardly spherical. The complex of jitterbugs does appear to describe wave propagation so visually & so eloquently. The other aspect of wave behavior that I have noticed within the jitterbug is in the shape made by a hexagonal equator of the VE as it reaches the icosa phase. The configuration of the VE edges of such an equator appear to be roughly analogous to a 1-1/2 cycle sine/cosine waveform. I wonder whether the arcs of the equato'rs vertexia would follow a sinousoidal path? Perhaps a computer simulation would help? Rick "I've learned to just say Know" Bono P.S. Hope I got the quotes right, my apologies if I goofed... RJB ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 21:50:47 +0100 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Synergetics - dimension, powering, etc [Gary was so rushed, he mailed to me personally by accident] As I'm in the midst of exhibit building (blatent ad ---> http://www.osc.on.ca/Exhibits/info-highway.html) I haven't much time for a thorough reply, so I welcome any other comments to flesh this out. > "GdJ" == Gerald de Jong writes: GdJ> In <199412041445.AA08054@xs1.xs4all.nl> Gary Lawrence Murphy GdJ> writes: >> It's my understanding that Fuller did incorporate time, going even >> further to incorporate temperature and all manner of coordinate >> axes which elsewhere appear only in gauge symmetry physics. These >> are the "nine dimensionality" associated, and modelled tactually by >> the VE. GdJ> do you have references in Synergetics, or perhaps other works? I believe it is Synergetics where VE are spoken of in increasing dimensions up to nine modellable dimensions. Also, I remember somewhere in there the description that a picture of a caterpillar says nothing of the butterfly (perhaps in Tetrascroll) which suggests to me Fuller held the dimension of time intrisic to any modelling. >> Regarding Lorenz contractions, since Fuller's geometry is >> topologically based, wouldn't contractions vanish? GdJ> could you please take the time to explain this further? Topologically, relative to any VE, the geometry is preserved so far as angles, edges, faces and vertices. However distorted, even if folded into a klein bottle, these topological relations are invariant. If we take another Fullerian view, of reality being the sum of experience, to the frame of reference of any VE, the geometric relations of angle and edge values are also unchanged by gravity (however they may be changed when viewed from another frame) >> [General Relativity:] Fuller's geometry could be taken as a model >> of those laws, rather than a model of the appearance of those laws >> in the given frame. GdJ> i hardly know what to ask.. uh.. what is then, in Fuller's GdJ> geometry, a representation of the laws in a given frame? the angle, edge, vertex and face relations, the invariants. these describe the relations within the frame and I might also accept, because these are topological, the description also holds for those relations seen from another frame. > Also, in Synergetics, the matrix >> of close-packed spheres is described as dynamic with angle and >> distance (in someone else's perspective, an angle) being valved, >> thus could what Einstein wrote about the differentials of local >> distances in a gravitational field could describe valving imposed >> by interference by the between-body gravitational tethers? GdJ> what is "valving"? (feel free to give a reference to Fuller) valving is the modulation in angles. part of the trouble with Synergetics as a guide is how it tries to describe a dynamic 4D geometry using static 2D images. If you have a rubber-hub VE model, the valving of face surface angles is modelled. If you replace the sticks with springs (because the sticks are in reality, tensegrity towers, hence elastic) you can model edge 'inner angle' (as seen from the model centre) valving. GdJ> i'm having a difficult time wrestling with this posting, though GdJ> it sounds fascinating. perhaps my physics training is GdJ> inadequate. Everyone's physics may be inadequate (and mine is no exception). That's why we are we and Bucky was Bucky! (although, Bucky proves through Guinea Pig B that there is very little, if any, difference :) Gary Lawrence Murphy ------------------------- garym@charon.osc.on.ca Sr.Scientist, Technology ------ http://www.osc.on.ca/people/Gary.html Research/Exhibit Planning --------------- voice: (416) 429-4100 x2215 Ontario Science Centre ------- 770 Don Mills Road, North York M3C 1T3 -------------------------------------- nothing surpasses the ordinary -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 08:58:54 PST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe Moore Subject: JOE MOORE PROFILE I have had several requests for the following information: I am a 54 year old divorced male with no children. I was born and raised in Northern California. For what it's worth, I have a Bachelor of Arts in the Economics (of Scarcity). I am self-taught as far as computers go (I have an Amiga 2000). I've worked in City "Planning" and for a County Department of "Social Services" (Welfare!), among other things. I now manage several rentals for my parents and live off my savings and investments. While working in City Planning I began to wonder how all the problems that I saw around me could be solved (City planning obviously wasn't doing such a hot job). Since humans were, at that time, getting ready to go to the moon, I instinctly felt that there was no reason that humans couldn't invent their way out of ANY problem. So I started looking. In 1970 I stumbled upon Bucky's 'Utopia or Oblivion' and realized that his strategy of "more with less" could work. So I started the long process of acquiring and absorbing the ideas and information he was making available. I did part-time volunteer work for the Buckminster Fuller Institute in Los Angeles (Fall '83-Fall '85) while I was trying to figure out what types of projects needed to be done. I decided to create a digital library of black and white and color Bucky pictures, a digital bibliography of references by and about him, and a database to manage the whole thing. I have since come to the conclusion that the fact that Bucky's works are still copyrighted has actually held back the spread of his ideas. Therefore, I decided to put all my work in the Public Domain. And I intend to put more of my material into the public domain as time goes on. -- JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 10:51:45 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Subject: Re: Synergetics - jitterbug, scale Chris: >Universe is still a finite machine. So, yes, Nature does have to round off. > If pi goes on infinitely, and Nature is using pi to calculate bubbles, > then for every bubble Nature creates She is either calculating > infinitely -- obviously not the case, or we would never see a bubble, > since as much as I would like to stick around that long I doubt I'll > manage it -- or She is rounding off somewhere down the line. > Picking up the PI thread... Bucky's contention was not that Nature is rounding PI somewhere down the line, but doesn't use Pi at all. Pi is useful in our algorithms (all of which truncate Pi -- keep in mind that no calculation using non-terminating, non-repeating decimals has ever been done by anyone, anywhere -- symbolic manipulation doesn't require digital values, but once digits are introduced, they're always terminated, i.e. rational in practice). People may think that because trigonometric functions etc are useful when predicting or modeling phenomena that therefore those phenomena must somehow involve some kind of invisible "computing" on nature's part. But the interplay of molecules and pressures which result in a bubble need not involve anything like binary manipulation of electrons through logic gates (our method). Instead of saying that nature is involved in "rounding" inherently non-terminating sequences of digits, I think we should realize that Pi and root-of-five are symbols of algorithms, which, if run indefinitely, will continue to produce a string of digits