Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking


  • Please log in to reply
129 replies to this topic

#103 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 27 May 2017 - 11:56 PM

Of course "systems in transformation" is exactly what "Learning Systems" are in Artificial Intelligence...
 
Bucky might appear to be philosophical on this at first glance--and his second batch of followers put too much into that--but he was always first and foremost an engineer.
 
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete, :phones:
Buffy


Second batch of followers? Who be they? And who be the first batch? There's a joke somewhere in reading too much into Fuller, but I can't quite produce it just now.

Following a lead in the Wiki, I'm looking into this analysis of Synergetics: >> A Fuller Explanation: The Synergetic Geometry of R. Buckminster Fuller By Amy C. Edmondson

#104 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 28 May 2017 - 12:22 AM

First batch were the 30's Dymaxion fans: nerds, engineers, futurists. Second Batch were turned on by Stewart Brand (that's me! :cheer: ): you know, flaky, granola chewing, Birkenstock wearing (well, for me being a little younger it was Earth Shoes), turned on by the idea of building geodesic yurts in a commune somewhere singing Joan Baez, all of us packing the latest issue of the Whole Earth Catalog and Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth....

 

Yes, there's probably a joke there. :rolleyes:

 

 

How we are going to resolve the ever-acceleratingly dangerous impasse of world-opposed politicians and ideological dogmas? I answer, it will be resolved by the computer, :phones:

Buffy



#105 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 28 May 2017 - 12:55 AM

First batch were the 30's Dymaxion fans: nerds, engineers, futurists. Second Batch were turned on by Stewart Brand (that's me! :cheer: ): you know, flaky, granola chewing, Birkenstock wearing (well, for me being a little younger it was Earth Shoes), turned on by the idea of building geodesic yurts in a commune somewhere singing Joan Baez, all of us packing the latest issue of the Whole Earth Catalog and Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth....
 
Yes, there's probably a joke there. :rolleyes:
 
How we are going to resolve the ever-acceleratingly dangerous impasse of world-opposed politicians and ideological dogmas? I answer, it will be resolved by the computer, :phones:
Buffy


I confess that I met Bucky in Whole Earth catalog, not that it was very packable I must say. Never grokked the 'stocks and all that jazz I must also confess. :shrug:

I had to look up Brand, and seeing he was a biology major has me remembering little to no biology of the botanical kind from Fuller. As botany has kept my keen interest for the last decade or so, I'm wondering where Fuller's lateral thinking has any role in this pursuit. Or maybe in some-where-obscured-unreachableness the fact that I'm interested in botany at all is his lateraltudinalityhoodedness. I suppose were he still kicking he would be happy to accept credit.

Well, off to peruse a bit of Amy's apologetics. :read:
  • Buffy likes this

#106 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 28 May 2017 - 11:22 AM

Okaly dokaly; some of Amy's A Fuller Explanation. Clever. :doh: I'm not sure how much I will quote from her apology inasmuch as I have to transcribe it because copying and pasting is unavailable from the Google Books copy. Here's a bit of transcription though and please excuse any typos.

Preface
...
Not surprisingly then, Fuller's mathematical writing has not attracted a mass audience. Rather, Synergetics has become a sort of Fuller proving ground, into which only a few scientific-minded types dare to venture.
...
However, such shyness is understandable; deciphering Fuller's two volumes, Synergetics and Synergetics 2, requires a sizable commitment of time and patience from even the most dedicated reader. Study groups have gone a long way toward helping individuals unravel the idiosyncratic, hyphenated prose of these two works, but the task, still arduous, is not for everyone. However, as those who dared it will have discovered, the major concepts presented in Fuller's intimidating books are not inherently difficult, and much of synergetics can be explained in simple familiar terms.
...
Experience with synergetics encourages a new way of approaching and solving problems. Its empahasis on visual and spatial phenomena combined with Fuller's holistic approach fosters the kind of lateral thinking which so often leads to creative breakthroughs.
...


A little ego stroking liberally spread never hurts an apology, but neither is it necessarily helping. Were it true that the major concepts avail of simple and familiar terms for we the daring there would be no need of a fuller explanation. Well, maybe a simple & familiar 'bullocks'. :wink:

Soooo...lateral thinking? Not sure if Bucky used that term, but it's a euphemism for our oft heard on forums, 'thinking-outside-the-box' refrain. Bucky bucks the box laterally and might have us say 'thinking-outside-the-tetrahedron'. The problem is that while such lateral-inside-outside thought may be a necessary condition for breakthroughs, it is not a sufficient condition as so many propound.

A particular common area of Bucky & my lateral thought is that of digital sums, which Bucky called indigs & I called katabataks. As I went into in some depth earlier in this thread, IMHO Bucky failed to produce on his promise inasmuch as he restricted his look to base 10 (say mod 9) on account of his fixation on [most] humans having 10 fingers. Tan pis for Bucky to title the Synergetics section on the subject 'Numerology'. Well, I suppose that's a nod to simple and familiar even if it's misleading if not outright wrong.

Now that my brain is aching I'll leave off for some R&R before I see how, or if, Amy apologizes for indigs.

How 'bout some of you other purported scientific thinkers here popping in for a retort or two?

Cheers! :friday:

#107 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 03 June 2017 - 12:41 PM

What's not to love about this?

306.02 My Universe is that portion of the intercommunicated aggregate of all conscious and operationally described experiences of all history’s beings, including my own, which is now totally recallable only in fragments as progressively and spontaneously tunable within my own angular orientation and zonal discernment limits of the multidirectional and multimagnitude, sensorial-frequency-spectrum inventory of the frequently accumulating, integrating, and accommodatingly rearranging memory album of all discernibly unique patternings whatsoever.



#108 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 12 June 2017 - 06:24 PM

exchemist, oceanbreeze, DrKrettin, et al of reputable character; here's an opportunity for satisfying discussion sans shite-pokery. Carpe diem!

 

Following another lead in the Wiki Synergetics article references section, I find an interesting launch from Fuller. While not mentioned in the Abstract, the computational model proposed for producing synergies is the cellular automaton.

Copying and pasting from the PDF eludes me so I'll just transcribe the Abstract and leave it to the interested reader(s) to digest the relatively short paper. (15 pages including diagrams.)

Tensional computation: Further musings on the computational cosmography

Abstract
Universe operates in pure principle only, wherefrom we can choose to view Universe as an emergent computation. The proposed method for this most basic of computations is the computational cosmography, wherein a system of interacting deformable polyhedr utilizing the geometric principles of R. B. Fuller's synergetic geometry coordinate and evolve within an isotropic vector matrix. A gedanken experiment involving gravity on a two-dimensional lattice is also discussed, as are some consequences associated with this computational cosmographical viewpoint. ...


Edited by Turtle, 12 June 2017 - 08:30 PM.

  • OceanBreeze likes this

#109 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2806 posts

Posted 13 June 2017 - 12:32 AM

exchemist, oceanbreeze, DrKrettin, et al of reputable character; here's an opportunity for satisfying discussion sans shite-pokery. Carpe diem!

 

Following another lead in the Wiki Synergetics article references section, I find an interesting launch from Fuller. While not mentioned in the Abstract, the computational model proposed for producing synergies is the cellular automaton.

Copying and pasting from the PDF eludes me so I'll just transcribe the Abstract and leave it to the interested reader(s) to digest the relatively short paper. (15 pages including diagrams.)

Tensional computation: Further musings on the computational cosmography

Christ, what appallingly written gobbledegook! Is this a joke? The editors have not even bothered to correct the English grammar.

 

I really can't face ploughing through 15 pages of this, without some encouragement that it may be worth my while. Do you think there is something interesting here and if so what, in a nutshell, is it?



#110 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 13 June 2017 - 09:57 AM

Christ, what appallingly written gobbledegook! Is this a joke? The editors have not even bothered to correct the English grammar.
 
I really can't face ploughing through 15 pages of this, without some encouragement that it may be worth my while. Do you think there is something interesting here and if so what, in a nutshell, is it?

:lol: Of course I found it interesting, else I wouldn't have read or posted it. Think of it as the mental equivalent of a ninja challenge. In a nutshell, Nystrom is proposing that the Universe [and so physics and chemistry] is a computational engine and he is suggesting experiments to explore the idea using Fullerian geometry operated on by a cellular automaton.
Here's Nystrom's home page: >> J.F. (jim) Nystrom, Ph.D.
 
If you are not familiar with Bucky Fuller, well..., he and his work are the subject of this thread. While Fuller has some odd ideas, and is the gobbledygook writing champion of the world, he is (well, was) a consummate geometer. You have heard of fullerenes? The geodesic dome? The former were named in Bucky's honor and the later was his invention.
 
You have been willing to wade through the writings of our local unaccredited forum cranks and I thought you [all] might then be willing to wade through the work of accredited, if not crank sounding, folks.
Here's Fuller's premier publication in its entirety, the title being the title of this thread. >> Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking

Gird your loins! :ninja:

#111 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2806 posts

Posted 13 June 2017 - 11:14 AM

:lol: Of course I found it interesting, else I wouldn't have read or posted it. Think of it as the mental equivalent of a ninja challenge. In a nutshell, Nystrom is proposing that the Universe [and so physics and chemistry] is a computational engine and he is suggesting experiments to explore the idea using Fullerian geometry operated on by a cellular automaton.
Here's Nystrom's home page: >> J.F. (jim) Nystrom, Ph.D.
 
If you are not familiar with Bucky Fuller, well..., he and his work are the subject of this thread. While Fuller has some odd ideas, and is the gobbledygook writing champion of the world, he is (well, was) a consummate geometer. You have heard of fullerenes? The geodesic dome? The former were named in Bucky's honor and the later was his invention.
 
You have been willing to wade through the writings of our local unaccredited forum cranks and I thought you [all] might then be willing to wade through the work of accredited, if not crank sounding, folks.
Here's Fuller's premier publication in its entirety, the title being the title of this thread. >> Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking

Gird your loins! :ninja:

Yeah I know of F Buller.

 

Our cranks write in a more accessible style than this paper, I have to say - and of course I don't have to read everything they post. I can jump in and question bits and pieces.

 

But, assuming you have read the paper and understand it, perhaps you can help me gain enough understanding to read more of it for myself.

 

The opening sentence of the paper is "Universe operates in pure principle only." What does that mean? And why "universe", not "the universe"? Does "universe" have some special technical meaning?



#112 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 13 June 2017 - 11:42 AM

Yeah I know of F Buller.

:lol: Knowing of him and actually reading him are rather different things. My purpose in starting this thread was to get familiar with what he says, not what others say of him.



Our cranks write in a more accessible style than this paper, I have to say - and of course I don't have to read everything they post. I can jump in and question bits and pieces.

You can read what you want here too, and as I alluded, the folks I am discussing here are published authors and not simply internet trolls.

But, assuming you have read the paper and understand it, perhaps you can help me gain enough understanding to read more of it for myself.

The opening sentence of the paper is "Universe operates in pure principle only." What does that mean? And why "universe", not "the universe"? Does "universe" have some special technical meaning?

My take is that Nystrom is pointing out that Universe does as it does without regard for what we ascribe to it. 'Universe' as opposed to 'the universe' is Fuller's nomenclature and meant to clarify that thinking in terms of 'in the universe' implies an 'out of the universe' and so leads to errors of thought.
Synergetics

300.00 Universe
301.00 Definition Universe
301.10 Universe is the aggregate of all humanity's consciously apprehended and communicated nonsimultaneous and only partially overlapping experiences.
302.00 Aggregate means sum-totally but nonunitarily conceptual as of any one moment. Consciousness means an awareness of otherness. Apprehension means information furnished by those wave frequencies tunable within man's limited sensorial spectrum. Communicated means informing self or others. Nonsimultaneous means not occurring at the same time. Overlapping is used because every event has duration, and their initiatings and terminatings are most often of different duration.1 Neither the set of all experiences nor the set of all the words used to describe them are instantly reviewable nor are they of the same length. Experiences are either involuntary (subjective) or voluntary (objective), and all experiences, both physical and metaphysical, are finite because each begins and ends.

(Footnote 1: The complex of event sequences is most often characterized by overlappings. A man is born, grows up, has children and grandchildren. His life overlaps that of his grandfather and father and that of his children and grandchildren. But his grandfather's life did not overlap his children's nor his grandchildren's lives. Hence, partially overlapping.)

303.00 Universe is the comprehensive, historically synchronous, integral-aggregate system embracing all the separate integral-aggregate systems of all men’s consciously apprehended and communicated (to self or others) nonsimultaneous, nonidentical, but always complementary and only partially overlapping, macro-micro, always-and- everywhere, omnitransforming, physical and metaphysical, weighable and unweighable event sequences. Universe is a dynamically synchronous scenario that is unitarily nonconceptual as of any one moment, yet as an aggregate of finites is sum-totally finite.

304.00 Our definition of Universe provides for the undiscovered and for the yet-to- be discovered. Do not worry about that farthermost star which is yet to be consciously apprehended by any human being. Do not think we have not provided for those physical or chemical phenomena as yet not observed and recorded by human or mechanical sensing devices. The existence of such phenomena may not have even been postulated, but they can all be accommodated by our definition of Universe. Because we start with whole Universe we have left out nothing: There is no multiplication by amplification of, or addition to, eternally regenerative Universe; there is only multiplication by division. The farthermost star and the most unfamiliar physical phenomena are all accommodated by further arithmetical subdividing of our aggregate of overlapping experiences. Nothing could have been left out when you start with whole Universe. (See Secs.522.32, 537.31, 540.03, and 1050.13.)
...



#113 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2806 posts

Posted 13 June 2017 - 11:47 AM

:lol: Knowing of him and actually reading him are rather different things. My purpose in starting this thread was to get familiar with what he says, not what others say of him.



You can read what you want here too, and as I alluded, the folks I am discussing here are published authors and not simply internet trolls.

My take is that Nystrom is pointing out that Universe does as it does without regard for what we ascribe to it. 'Universe' as opposed to 'the universe' is Fuller's nomenclature and meant to clarify that thinking in terms of 'in the universe' implies an 'out of the universe' and so leads to errors of thought.
Synergetics

OK thanks. Evidently there is a whole system of terminology to master before one can read this sort of thing. And to be honest, I don't think the subject matter is going to be my cup of tea. 


Edited by exchemist, 13 June 2017 - 11:50 AM.


#114 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 13 June 2017 - 11:53 AM

OK thanks. Evidently there is a whole system of terminology to master before one can read this sort of thing.

That is true of Nystrom's work inasmuch as he is using Fuller's geometry. Reading Fuller himself is a matter of girding the loins and plunging in. It's a bit like gold mining, wherein you have to be prepared to sort through tons of rock to find ounces of gold. Gold is however, gold, and it is only where you find it. :hi:

Edited by Turtle, 13 June 2017 - 11:54 AM.


#115 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1073 posts

Posted 14 June 2017 - 01:44 AM

exchemist, oceanbreeze, DrKrettin, et al of reputable character; here's an opportunity for satisfying discussion sans shite-pokery. Carpe diem!

 

Following another lead in the Wiki Synergetics article references section, I find an interesting launch from Fuller. While not mentioned in the Abstract, the computational model proposed for producing synergies is the cellular automaton.

Copying and pasting from the PDF eludes me so I'll just transcribe the Abstract and leave it to the interested reader(s) to digest the relatively short paper. (15 pages including diagrams.)

Tensional computation: Further musings on the computational cosmography

 

It is very kind of you to include my name in such esteemed company.

So, I have taken a look at the link you provided.

All I can say is:

2c77c5a1e0387688161eeb357d9b5195.jpg


  • Turtle and exchemist like this

#116 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2806 posts

Posted 14 June 2017 - 01:57 AM

:lol: Knowing of him and actually reading him are rather different things. My purpose in starting this thread was to get familiar with what he says, not what others say of him.



You can read what you want here too, and as I alluded, the folks I am discussing here are published authors and not simply internet trolls.

My take is that Nystrom is pointing out that Universe does as it does without regard for what we ascribe to it. 'Universe' as opposed to 'the universe' is Fuller's nomenclature and meant to clarify that thinking in terms of 'in the universe' implies an 'out of the universe' and so leads to errors of thought.
Synergetics

But he is saying "universe" means the sum of "communicated" human experience. 

 

That is quite different from the scientific concept of "the universe", which is - broadly speaking -  everything that exists in physical nature. His "universe" would seem to include subjective experience, to exclude any parts of nature that humanity has not experienced, and also to exclude any human experience that has not been communicated.

 

So we are not talking science in this paper, apparently. 

 

Can this be right? 


Edited by exchemist, 14 June 2017 - 01:58 AM.

  • Turtle likes this

#117 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 14 June 2017 - 11:01 AM

It is very kind of you to include my name in such esteemed company.
So, I have taken a look at the link you provided.
All I can say is:
2c77c5a1e0387688161eeb357d9b5195.jpg


Glad to have you. :welcome: I gave two links; which do you think Assimov knows (knew) all about? Now that you know something about the subject, what specifics jump out as scientifically criticizeable?

 

 

But he is saying "universe" means the sum of "communicated" human experience. 

 

That is quite different from the scientific concept of "the universe", which is - broadly speaking -  everything that exists in physical nature. His "universe" would seem to include subjective experience, to exclude any parts of nature that humanity has not experienced, and also to exclude any human experience that has not been communicated.

 

So we are not talking science in this paper, apparently. 

 

Can this be right? 

 

:lol: Fuller's Synergetics is a two-volume tome, so a bit more than a 'paper'. His geometry is science if you consider geometry and math science, and yes, Fuller's concepts are quite different from the standard models. Take note that this thread is in the philosophy section and while Bucky's geometry is rigorous, much of what he ascribes to it is solidly of the philosophic bent.

 

The Nystrom papers piggyback parts of both Fuller's geometry and his philosophy and I would consider his proposals scientific inasmuch as he makes an hypothesis, i.e. Universe is a computational engine, and he lays out a course of experiments to test it, i.e. a matrix built of Fuller's vector equilibrium operated on by a cellular automaton. Note that he has apparently not actually made a cellular automaton that operates on a VE matrix so it's still pretty solidly a philosophic argument.

 

While this thread has something of the flavor of the crackpottery we all disdain in the usual discussions here, I see the difference in that the folks we are discussing do have a history of accreditation and accomplishments and above all they don't spend any time telling us how stupid we are or how questionable our parentage is. Tan mieux that Fuller is still dead and we can mock him with impunity. :jab: :lol:



#118 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2806 posts

Posted 14 June 2017 - 02:55 PM

Glad to have you. :welcome: I gave two links; which do you think Assimov knows (knew) all about? Now that you know something about the subject, what specifics jump out as scientifically criticizeable?

 

 

 

:lol: Fuller's Synergetics is a two-volume tome, so a bit more than a 'paper'. His geometry is science if you consider geometry and math science, and yes, Fuller's concepts are quite different from the standard models. Take note that this thread is in the philosophy section and while Bucky's geometry is rigorous, much of what he ascribes to it is solidly of the philosophic bent.

 

The Nystrom papers piggyback parts of both Fuller's geometry and his philosophy and I would consider his proposals scientific inasmuch as he makes an hypothesis, i.e. Universe is a computational engine, and he lays out a course of experiments to test it, i.e. a matrix built of Fuller's vector equilibrium operated on by a cellular automaton. Note that he has apparently not actually made a cellular automaton that operates on a VE matrix so it's still pretty solidly a philosophic argument.

 

While this thread has something of the flavor of the crackpottery we all disdain in the usual discussions here, I see the difference in that the folks we are discussing do have a history of accreditation and accomplishments and above all they don't spend any time telling us how stupid we are or how questionable our parentage is. Tan mieux that Fuller is still dead and we can mock him with impunity. :jab: :lol:

But as "universe" is not a scientifically recognisable objective entity, it is hard to see what can be objectively meant by an assertion that it, whatever it may be, is a "computing engine".

 

Secondly, a "computing engine" is terminology with a bias to it. An "engine" is not a natural structure but a device, i.e. something designed, presumably to do something for whoever designed and built it.  The classic argument against design in nature (which we are all familiar with from fending off ID trolls for example) is that there are no objective criteria to determine whether or not any structure or process  in nature might be "designed". 



#119 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 14 June 2017 - 04:06 PM

But as "universe" is not a scientifically recognisable objective entity, it is hard to see what can be objectively meant by an assertion that it, whatever it may be, is a "computing engine".

Keep in mind that Nystrom is using Fullerian terminology and, as will any individual, Nystrom has his own interpretation of it.

As far as Synergetics is concerned, Fuller -properly- defines his terms before he goes on to use them. It's not a matter of whether you agree with his definitions, rather it is a matter of understanding his use of terms if you are to have any hope of understanding the arguments in which they are employed. From there you can argue with Fuller's arguments. :lol:
 

Secondly, a "computing engine" is terminology with a bias to it. An "engine" is not a natural structure but a device, i.e. something designed, presumably to do something for whoever designed and built it.  The classic argument against design in nature (which we are all familiar with from fending off ID trolls for example) is that there are no objective criteria to determine whether or not any structure or process  in nature might be "designed".

'Engine' is my term, and well within a broader meaning than a physical or mechanical one. E.g. we may talk of an 'engine of change', which is fitting with the dictionary definition, "b. An agent, instrument, or means of accomplishment". Nystrom calls his idea 'computational cosmography' and I called his proposed experiment a 'computational engine', meaning a computer is used to accomplish the experiment.

There is not of necessity any implication of a designer in definition b., although I haven't read enough of Nystrom to know if he argues for a designer in his computational cosmography.

Some of the things I read in Nystrom, and I have read at least two different papers he authored, I disagree with because he doesn't substantiate them and they disagree with some of Hofstadter's writings which are heavily substantiated.

What I did like about Nystrom was his idea of using cellular automata and if you know anything about Conway's Life you may also know how complex behavior can emerge from a few simple rules. Here's a wiki on Life in case you aren't familiar with it: >> Conway's Game of Life Note the complexity it has and it operates on a 2-dimensional square matrix, so one can logically conclude how much more complexity might be had from a CA operating in/on a 3-dimensional matrix of vector equilibria.