Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking

[Turtle]

some of it sounds familiar, like an acquaintance's voice heard after a 40 year lapse, and some of it seems quite new, like a bee sting of 5 minutes ago.

I know it wasn't necessarily meant to be deep, but it is. Poetry in motion. Right then...

 

:) gracias. no wait! muchas gracias.:) :) i put a lot of effort to having my writings give the appearance of being not necessarily deep.

 

Ha, I was quoting this to ask you to explain it and then when I read it again (while copy/pasting) it clicked!

 

Nine balls with one in the center...Can't a symettrical array be fathomed around any one digit integer?

 

I still think it was fingers, call me shallow if you will. ;)

 

on the fingers, i simply don't know. not sure it matters even, but bucky certainly puts forward an interesting set of circumstances in regards history, people, counting, & geometry.

 

the array fuller describes lies in/on a plane and having the "integer digits" as balls or spheres is a specific geometric set of problems called "close packing". >> Close-packing of spheres - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

so in regards to close packing there is no simpler symmetrical arrangement than the 10 balls/spheres that bucky describes that entirely surrounds a single ball/sphere at the center. this close packing is a fundamental concept, bucky would say generalized principle, that underlies much of Synergetics geometry.

 

fear not, mr. fuller develops the topic to a great depth, albeit getting to it by a sincerely circuitous route. :hyper: :hihi: here's some of that exposition if you care to jump around: >> 200.00 SYNERGETICS

 

next reading under Numerology, bucky is going to start with some counting techniques. :)

 

§1220.00 Indigs

[Turtle]

so thens...no need to rush ahead like a race tortoise is there?

 

pull up a beer & lets drink a chair. :rant: in the hardcover, § 1210.00 runs 30 pages and only a smidgeon of that quothed i here. hoping maybe some of you read it all. :hyper: nonetheless, the balls and alls bears on a central theme of fuller's and anssih touched on it in one of our discussions in a double-d thread. the balls ultimately aren't just any old balls, they are all old balls and this includes the old balls of quantum physics or so called "point particles".

 

as i recall, anssih asked something to the effect of "is fuller simply putting forward a different geometry to reperesent reality, or is he saying reality is really that way?" most assuredly, bucky is saying reality is really his way as well as saying his geometry is a valid explanation. more or less...

 

if bucky can zip around this writng from section to section at the drop of a hat, by jiminy so can i. i will of course repsect & follow his example of returning from whence he flew, and we will be picking up with §1210.00 to be sure we have finished it and before moving on to §1220.00 and indigs.

 

tally ho!! :hyper:

600.00 STRUCTURE

... 625.04 Inasmuch as the difference between any conceptual system and total Universe is always two weightless, invisible tetrahedra, if our physical conceptual system is a regular equiedged tetrahedron, then its complementation may be a weightless, metaphysical tetrahedron of various edge lengths__ergo, non-mirror-imaged__yet with both the visible and the invisible tetrahedra's corner angles each adding up to 720 degrees, respectively, though one be equiedged and the other variedged.

625.05 The two invisible and n-sized tetrahedra that complement all systems to aggregate sum totally as finite but nonsimultaneously conceptual scenario Universe are mathematically analogous to the "annihilated" left-hand phase of the rubber glove during the right hand's occupation of the glove. The difference between the sensorial, special- case, conceptually measurable, finite, separately experienced system and the balance of nonconceptual scenario Universe is two finitely conceptual but nonsensorial tetrahedra. We can say that scenario Universe is finite because (though nonsimultaneously conceptual and considerable) it is the sum of the conceptually finite, after-image-furnished thoughts of our experience systems plus two finite but invisible, n-sized tetrahedra. ...

[Turtle]

i couldn't help reading ahead on the "Indigs" and i have never with so much certainty believed that ol' bucky had flipped his ever-lovin' noodle. :) he never misses a chance to take a shot at the mainstreamers for overlooking some "thing" and then he stammers & blubbers his way into the same sort of corner with his indigs. he makes his work tables so small as to be nearly unreadable in both the book and online versions, but with a magnifying glass and the hardcover i do see that he uses 2 or 3 pages to find the residues of squares mod 9, something i have one simple small katabatak graph for.

 

herein lies the big oversight of bucky, he doesn't ever actually use anything other than mod 9 because adding base 10 numerals "numerologically" is congruent mod 9 and as we have seen he thinks that 10 is some kind of universal "natural" thing on account of close-packing spheres and fingers on hands. dear dear soft headed old dead man. :doh:

 

i have to make up some tables in his style but in other bases to show why his universal "octave wave" is baloney. gird yer loins bucky boy and prpeare to be boarded! :)

 

1200.00 NUMEROLOGY

1200.00 NUMEROLOGY

[Turtle]

what bucky calls "superior figures" refers to the superscripts. these are not powers, rather the "numerological sums" .

 

1221.20 Indig Table B: Modulo-Congruence Tables: The effects of integers: One is + 1. Two is + 2. Three is + 3. Four is +4. Five is - 4. Six is - 3. Seven is - 2. Eight is -1. Nine is zero; nine is none.

(The superior figures in the Table are the Indigs.)

 

Congruence in Modulo One Integrates to Gain 1: (Each row gains 1 in each column)

1¹

2²

3³

4⁴

5⁵

6⁶

7⁷

8⁸

9⁹

10¹

11²

12⁴

 

 

Congruence in Modulo Two Integrates to Gain 2: (Each row gains 2 in each column)

1¹ 2²

3³ 4⁴

5⁵ 6⁶

7⁷ 8⁸

9⁹ 10¹

11² 12³

13⁴ 14⁵

15⁶ 16⁷

 

simply aligning different numbers of columns does not make this modulo 2 or any other modulo as bucky implies. all the superscripts are still the integers mod 9.

 

then bucky arbitrarily, and erroneously in my humble opinion, starts saying the superscripts in columns differ by negative values, when in fact they differ by positive values. for example:

 

Congruence in Modulo Five Integrates to Lose 4: (Each row loses 4 in each column)

 

1¹ 2² 3³ 4⁴ 5⁵

6⁶ 7⁷ 8⁸ 9⁹ 10¹

11² 12³ 13⁴ 14⁵ 15⁶

16⁷ 17⁸ 18⁹ 19¹ 20²

21³ 22⁴ 23⁵ 24⁶ 25⁷

26⁸ 27⁹ 28¹ 29² 30³

 

the "indigs" are increasing by 5 here, not decreasing by 4. ;)

 

if you write the integer lists in another base, the 4/0/4 "octave" disappears. here is the last list above, but written in base 9. notice the differences now along the column indigs are no longer by -4's.

 

1¹ 2² 3³ 4⁴ 5⁵

6⁶ 7⁷ 8⁸ 10¹ 11²

12³ 13⁴ 14⁵ 15⁶ 16⁷

17⁸ 18⁹ 20² 21³ 22⁴

23⁵ 24⁶ 25⁷ 26⁸ 27⁹ ...

 

who we gonna call!? :doh: :phones:

[Turtle]

:)

 

1222.00 Absolute Four and Octave Wave

1222.10 Prime Dichotomy: It is found that all decimally expressed whole numbers integrate into only nine digits. Looking at the charts (Indig Table :(, we see the nine indigs resultant to the decimal system, or congruence in modulo ten, have integrated further to disclose only nine unique operational effects upon all other integers. These nine interoperational effects in turn reduce into only eight other integer-magnitude-altering effects and one no-magnitude-altering effect. The "octave" of eight magnitude-altering sets of indigs in turn disclose primary dichotomy into four positively altering and four negatively altering magnitude operators, with each set arranged in absolute arithmetical sequence of from one to four only.

 

so much for giving bucky the benefit of my doubt. :) while i have only a casual knowledge of physics, i have a butt-load of specific knowledge & experience working with residues and this is nothing short of delusional thinking expressed as misinformed babbling of the worst interoperational effects kind. :)

[freeztar]

:doh:

 

 

 

so much for giving bucky the benefit of my doubt. :hyper: while i have only a casual knowledge of physics, i have a butt-load of specific knowledge & experience working with residues and this is nothing short of delusional thinking expressed as misinformed babbling of the worst interoperational effects kind. :Alien:

 

Can you please translate what he is saying for those of us that don't speak Fuller?

It seems to me that he's saying that all primes can be reduced to one of nine numbers. But, what the heck is an indig? :shrug:

 

I found this, but it still doesn't make sense.

 

1200.00 NUMEROLOGY

[Turtle]

Can you please translate what he is saying for those of us that don't speak Fuller?

It seems to me that he's saying that all primes can be reduced to one of nine numbers. But, what the heck is an indig? :)

 

I found this, but it still doesn't make sense.

 

1200.00 NUMEROLOGY

 

what bucky is calling an "indig" is a remainder/residue of an integer after dividing by 9. for a point of reference, i have called "indigs" "katabatak transforms/residues" in my katabataks threads. clearly you can derive such a remainder after dividing by 9 from every integer, prime or composite. we have 2 main ways to get that remainder; #1) do the long division and find the remainder 2) sum the digits repeatedly until arriving at a single digit. (this is the method of numerology & in strict mathematic terms called digital roots)

 

so for example, take the integer 1928. doing the long divsion you have 1928/9= 214R2, so the "indig" is 2. now for the same integer to find the digital root you add the digits like so: 1+9+2+8=20 and 2+0=2 and again the "indig" is 2.

 

so when dividing by 9 for a remainder you obviously can have 9 different results for the remainder . bucky tries to explain, but does it poorly, that having an indig of 9 is the same as having an indig of 0(zero). thinking to long division by 9 for example, if you divide 36 by nine using long divsion you typically write the answer as 4 remainder 0, but it is also technically correct to write it as 3 remainder 9.

 

bucky's biggest problem here is confusing the map for the territory. in short, the numerals aren't the numbers. rewrite an integer in a base besides 10 and the resulting indig is different. for example, twenty in base ten is 20 (2 in the tens column and zero in the one's column) and the indig is 2, but twenty in base 9 is written 22 (2 in the nines column and 2 in the one's column) and the indig is then 2+2=4. in the first case the remainder is after dividing by 9, in the second case the remainder is after divsion by 8.

 

bucky is taking his indigs and saying they correlate to his geometry, but that corrrelation only appears if you use base 10 to write the numerals under consideration. :)

[wirra]

so thens...no need to rush ahead like a race tortoise is there?

Hi , first time here, I just can't seem to get away from the Man, I was merely looking at some dermatology therapies and found Grenz rays (low freq Xrays) aka Bucky Rays, but could find nowhere support for or against my assumption that RBM had one of his supernumary

metaphorical digits in there. I still didnt check Mr Grenz's 1929 discovery credentials, but now I've happened upon a site seemingly to my taste, I might get lucky with the Bucky Rays story right in here.

[Turtle]

so thens...no need to rush ahead like a race tortoise is there?

Hi , first time here, I just can't seem to get away from the Man, I was merely looking at some dermatology therapies and found Grenz rays (low freq Xrays) aka Bucky Rays, but could find nowhere support for or against my assumption that RBM had one of his supernumary metaphorical digits in there. I still didnt check Mr Grenz's 1929 discovery credentials, but now I've happened upon a site seemingly to my taste, I might get lucky with the Bucky Rays story right in here.

 

bucky had 6 fingers!!!??? :lol: i'm afraid i don't know anything about bucky rays, but if they are like bucky balls then bucky had nothing to do with them, i.e. he did not write about them. i recycled my hard-copies of synergetics but the online version is linked in many of these posts for anyone's perusal.

 

welcome to the forum, happy reading, & let me know if you hook a fish.

[lawcat]

I wonder if Bucky's Explorations in Geometry of thinking complement Dr. Richard's explorations in Quantum Mechanics of thinking.

[Turtle]

I wonder if Bucky's Explorations in Geometry of thinking complement Dr. Richard's explorations in Quantum Mechanics of thinking.

 

yes; they do. i brought it up years ago to him and then ansii. you know the rest of story.

[Turtle]

For some unfathomable reason, Fuller invaded my caranium a few blarbs ago and in the spirit of the moment and the trend I see in recent posts I was compelled to necromance this long dead thread. Beyond that I have no rhyme or reason for this posting. Have a nice day.  

 

The root: >> SYNERGETICS: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking by R. Buckminster Fuller

[Turtle]

Bump :Bump2:

 

Well, I did have a reason I suppose, i.e. to garner some input on Fuller from some of the new members I consider worthy of reading. You know who you are. :D

[Buffy]

Hey Mr. T, that link seems moribund. Title but no content, and as I remember it had a whole site behind it. Is there an alternate?

 

 

A man travels the world over in search of what he needs and returns home to find it, :phones:

Buffy

[Turtle]

 

Hey Mr. T, that link seems moribund. Title but no content, and as I remember it had a whole site behind it. Is there an alternate?

 

 

A man travels the world over in search of what he needs and returns home to find it, :phones:

Buffy

 

Hey Ms. B. Just click on the underlined title at the top, then click a couple 'Nexts' to get to the index. The entire of Fuller's two-volume work is there.

 

There is nothing in a caterpillar that tells you it's going to be a butterfly. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

 

[Turtle]

On a whim I checked on Fuller's Synergetics at Wiki and found a stub article was created around the time I left off my investigation here in '09. Definitely a worthy read for those lacking the wherewithal to engage Bucky on his own terms. :P

 

>> Synergetics (Fuller) @ Wikipedia

 

The article begins:

Synergetics is the empirical study of systems in transformation, with an emphasis on total system behavior unpredicted by the behavior of any isolated components, including humanity's role as both participant and observer. ...

Some interesting notes there on some folks that took on some aspects of Fuller's work in depth. Might merit some follow-up...

[Buffy]

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