Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: What is 4D

Expand Messages
  • coyote_starship
    ... Twas an analogy. I don t see myself as at all imprecise relative to you, so spare me the lecture. ... So? No one said this scientific method was for
    Message 1 of 32 , Nov 24, 2010
      --- In synergeo@yahoogroups.com, "John Brawley" <jb@...> wrote:
      >
      > [(moremassdels)]
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "coyote_starship" <kirby.urner@...>
      >
      > > I am more likely to accept "buzzy" than "fuzzy", and it's not
      > > inconsistent with the mood of physics, to accept uncertainty
      > > as a built in feature, with imaginary precision, beyond physical
      > > limits, more a temptation and mirage than a beacon.
      >
      > There's a difference between a fuzzy (or buzzy) aspect to physics, and Fuzzy
      > Fizzicks. The uncertainty in certain observations is TINY, tiny, tiny.
      > Taking that and blowing it up to the kind of proportions that lead to doubts
      > about science's findings in general, is akin to suggesting that because you
      > can't hit a BB with a .306 rifle at four miles, you can't hit a dime at
      > fifty feet (which you --or I, anyway, assuredly can).
      >
      > IOW the uncertainty inherent in physics (science in general) should not be
      > taken for license to ignore what precision does exist.
      >

      Twas an analogy. I don't see myself as at all
      imprecise relative to you, so spare me the
      lecture.

      >
      > Philosophy tends to wrap *everything*. It, like religion, suffers from lack
      > of the very sort of logical test regimen that *is* the Scientific Method.
      >

      So? No one said this scientific method was for *everything*.
      It's for science. To pile all kinds of value-laden stuff atop
      science with no ironclad justifications or proofs, is not
      "bad science" because it's not science. It's Humans in Universe.
      We've had many a top scientist through Portland saying this
      same thing. They don't pretend the scientific method is for
      use beyond science. That just becomes a parody of science,
      as so many disciplines have become.

      > My own experience breaks down to two 'time' frames: before Tverse, and after
      > Tverse. I recall having seen a copy of Synergetics one before Tverse had
      > 'settled', and my reaction was "Why so huge a tome? Why so complicated?
      > Why such strange use of language?" My reaction after Tverse was simply
      > "This is not correct."
      >

      I figured out that thickness of the tome, with the four volumes
      to follow, is that dictionary definitions are always post hoc.
      Meanings that stick, have a long half life, are developed
      operationally. Pre-mature pithiness is the root of all evil,
      is what they say in software engineering.

      > My info is that Science arose because religion 'sent it out there' into the
      > world after information, because Science's logical method could not be in
      > principle faulted by religion and thus religion wished to use that method to
      > prise information out of Nature. The "conflict" between religion and
      > science didn't begin raising it's pointed little head until science started
      > bringing back information that religion didn't like. IOW, Science did *not*
      > arise 'in order to' (you: "as a way of") challenge religious authority.
      > Science was the promising child of that very authority, who came home with
      > unexpected and unwanted uglinesses in hand.
      >

      Many storytellers in this area, each on a soap box, talking
      guides stretching to the horizon.

      >
      > I see need to harmonize lumps-geometry with point/line/plane/volume
      > geometry, and the only way I see to do that is to equate a lump with a
      > point, and go from there. Otherwise, giving points 'volume' and lines and
      > planes 'thickness' seems to me to be little more than (as noted)
      > weak-mindedness or a desire to avoid having to think things one can't find
      > in local personal provincial reality. (Lump user = pragmatist :: Point user
      > = idealist.)
      > (My upon-Menger lumps-making aspersion-casting isn't 'cavalier,' it's
      > purposive and well supported.
      >

      Points are no more primitive than lines or planes, all just lumps
      of a different shape, made of res extensa (philosophers' clay).

      Your dismissal of Menger's proposal as "weak-mindedness" looks
      like evidence of your own. You've chosen a different fork in
      the road and have bet the store on your pionts or whatever.
      Of course everyone else is just a stupid ass at this point.
      Twas ever thus, when one goes down a rabbit hole, in search of
      salvation, fame and glory or whatever the hell.

      > > However I'm encouraged you'd consider it a "geometry for the masses".
      >
      > (Ignoring the fact that mine was an insult aimed at the middle of the Bell
      > curve? "The masses" aren't equipped to deal with idealizations, and you've
      > pointed out over and over that people in general don't deal well with things
      > they can't directly experience *therefore* don't bother kids with them....
      > I meant (obviously): if you ain't got the brains to handle ideals, then
      > here!, take these lumps instead.)
      >

      I understood the insult, but coming from you it was harmless.

      >
      > Don't get me too far wrong: I believe science and religion are perfectly
      > harmonious in principle. The conflict arises from *existing* and *formal*
      > and *established* religions' perceived disharmonies with science, from
      > Creationists and Evangelicals and other dogmatics --including antitheistic
      > scientists-- arguing out of extremely limited understanding (you know: those
      > in the middle and shallow low part of the Bell Curve...(*g*)) and out of
      > unbendable provincial 'True Believer"-ism.
      >

      I would prefer to think of "sciences" and "religions" both in
      the plural and then come across specimens it was hard if not
      impossible to sort into one or the other. Is this a science?
      Is this a religion? It's the impotence of our categorization
      schemes that I sometimes like to highlight, versus taking those
      for granted while sitting on some high horse in judgment.

      Lots of science is done knowing full well what the outcome
      needs to be, because of who is paying the bills. If there's no
      way around the "wrong" outcome, then scientists know their peers
      will find the opening, so they go back to the boss saying
      there's this weakness. Usually though, it's possible to cast
      doubt where certainty might be inconvenient. And it's possible
      to contrive experiments and spin a theory such that the needed
      outcome survives intact. You might call that "biased science"
      or even "not science", but it's what a lot of people pay for
      and publish in peer reviewed journals.

      The book 'State of Fear' by Michael Crichton was opening a window
      on this world, where money talks through funded research. On
      this list, I was going on about the Nutrasweet debate, which on
      the one side hinges on trace quantities dissipating with no
      effects. The fact the body builders or smart drug enthusiasts
      might use aspartic acid as a dietary supplement for some valued
      outcome, is not something to harp on therefore, as once you
      open the door to any effects, positive or negative, you have
      a Pandora's box to worry about. So you won't find any pro-
      Nutrasweet PR saying it makes you smarter, at least not from
      the company. Such is the chess game of science, wherein
      far-from-impartial practitioners marshal evidence pro and con
      various policies and permissions.

      > > I despair of ever understanding Tetrahedraverse, at least by means
      > > of Synergeo. However, I recognize the pattern of an emerging
      > > clarity based on what at first seemed an error (an anomaly).
      >
      > I can't believe, with your obvious intelligence and longstanding grasp of
      > tetrahedralities in general, that you can't 'get' Tverse from my words and
      > images here. You must not want to, or don't have the time to, or haven't
      > the freedom to, 'get' Tverse. No other explanation is sensible: Tverse as
      > dynamic geometry could be well understood by a ten-year-old, fully
      > understood by a high school freshman (an *average* freshman), and is
      > modelled by such a simple physical thing as a stretched weather balloon full
      > of greasy BBs floating in microgravity, or a tight spherical container full
      > of cold Helium.
      > I think you don't "despair of"; I think you simply don't care enough to.
      > (That, and you already know Tverse has 'conflicts' with your chosen
      > tetrahedralized Belief System, perhaps thus sparking avoidance.)
      >

      You say how simple it is, but then this anti-matter doubling of
      the 12-around-1 or whatever you called it -- had we heard that
      before? Is there a quote at your website I would have found,
      even years ago, explaining anti-matter in this way?

      Your balloon and vacuum bag, tight spherical container, all have
      convex exteriors, yet a minute ago you were saying you didn't
      have an exterior, only a concave wall pushing you back or
      something like that. You label the 4D stuff as "containerism"
      and yet you're using a sphere....

      It just seems ad hoc and in the spirit of the moment, a lot of
      what you say about Tverse. Probably Synergetics seems the same
      way too you: fuzzy, mushy, not all that coherent.

      I'm not a supreme master of the Synergetics stuff either, don't
      claim to have it all down. In a literature class, one doesn't
      need to sit atop a work as its monster truck power user. One
      supplies commentary, literary criticism, insights, makes forays.
      This is more my relationship with Synergetics. And yes, it feeds
      me more, there's more to go on.

      You have some interesting sculptures too though, some art,
      including working software. You have a website. And you've
      archived a ton of material on Synergeo, which, if Ken doesn't
      delete it, might continue to serve as a tourist attraction,
      though off the beaten path.

      > > I think it's less intuitive than drilled-in and today taken for
      > > granted by quasi-everyone who goes to school. Perhaps because of
      > > morphogenetic fields (more another meme model could apply) it now
      > > all seems so commonsensical and "experiential".
      >
      > Well, then, maybe it's just me, thinking freely about 'volume', that causes
      > me to intuit three most-unlike-one-another directions/dimensions. I'm not
      > inculcated with 3D-ism by school; I just *perceive* 3D-ism in my daily life.
      > That doesn't make me a cubist or a brainwashed XYZer, 'cause I could stand
      > in a large tetra-tent and still get exactly the same impression of three
      > axes of volume....
      >

      However, some have more flexible minds and see it other ways too.
      They're not proud stuck-in-the-muds. It takes some humility to
      set aside standard "normal" ways of thinking and trying on
      another one for size. Not everyone is up to it. Takes a mature
      audience.

      > > A scientist, a priest, and a lawyer all walked into a bar.
      > > The bartender said, "what is this, a joke?"
      >
      > Never saw that take before. Good one.
      >

      << snip >>

      > > I'm just making it clear what '4D' means in this namespace.
      >
      > Yes, and I'm just discussing certain points.
      > The rest of what you're doing here seems primarily for the archives.
      >

      For readers who aren't playing your role. Your job is to have
      these standard / predictable opinions, to play the conservative
      "gee it's so obvious" kind of guy. You're here to represent
      Mr. Average who can't seem to get it, and doesn't want to.
      That helps others, who maybe *do* want to get it.

      Another approach might be to read Rybo. I notice he's been posting
      but I'm guessing he's as stuck in "three dee" thinking as you
      seem to be. That makes "four dimensional" seem too difficult and
      mysterious. Which can be advantageous if one wants to sound
      physics-savvy and hide in a cloud of half-formed ideas, flashing
      on fermions. Many a priest has this cloud chamber device, which
      looks scintillating from a distance, but doesn't give off much
      light. Foggy Physics. Fog of War. Woof.

      > > I think you're already clear, and now the argument has moved
      > > on as to why people should do this. You're kicking up the mud,
      > > also, perhaps wishing to occlude these meanings I've clarified.
      > > That just makes you a vandal in some ways. You want to paint
      > > graffiti on the exhibits, make it harder to see through the glass.
      >
      > I never, to my awareness, try to occlude meaning in what you're doing.
      > I have legitimate objections, differences with my own system primarily,
      > which get motivated into webtext by my perception that Synergetics in
      > general is --whether claimed to be or no, whether visibly or no, with or
      > without counterargument-- presented as THE "geometry of Nature."
      > Graffiti on the exhibits? No, just a conspicuous warning label on the
      > window.
      >

      If you're sincere in wishing to get the 4D point of view, you might
      want to try your hand at supporting it for a paragraph or two, as
      best you can. This is how it works in some debating formats: you
      need to be equally ready to argue both sides. It'd be interesting
      to see your best defense of Synergetics, as you understand it. It
      might be better than Rybo's.

      For the most part, though, Synergetics seems too indefensible to
      be worth siding with. An alliance with Bucky-as-Voldemort looks
      ill-advised (look what's happened to out teachers in that position).

      People make a quick calculation and decide it'd be more to their
      advantage to fight Synergetics than side with it. Easier than
      either of those choices is to simply ignore it completely -- the
      most popular choice. However, as literature it's hard to ignore.

      In diplomatic circles at least, you come off as a dud if you've
      not done at least some homework. You want to have the latest
      poop on things to be invited to parties. I'm not saying Fuller is
      front and center in any current debates, only that his legacy has
      become important. There's a sense of a counter-culture that
      doesn't make as much sense if you ignore history too completely.

      > > In any case, the fact that we continue to disagree doesn't
      > > mean I still have work to do. Making you agree with me is not
      > > a goal.
      >
      > After all this time that's obvious. So's the inverse.
      > I tend, though, to think more that it's your geometry that disagrees with
      > mine in some fundamentally important ways, than that it's "you" who
      > disagrees with "me" (and v.v.). That "we" disagree tends to suggest we have
      > each somehow "become" our geometries. ....Which upon reflection may not be
      > all that far from the truth....
      >

      A pattern has crystallized in our debates over the years. This
      has probably helped both of us, as contrast breeds awareness.
      In Synergetics, self awareness and otherness awareness are two
      sides of the same coin. You have more self to be aware of the
      more you internalize the otherness that surrounds you.

      Where I might be heading with Synergetics is more focus on the
      "me ball" and Fuller's reputation for egoism. I think we might
      have a link here to this Egoist philosophy some people are
      studying. What's its relationship to punk and to nihilism?

      Why I'm thinking this way probably has a lot to do with girl
      scout math and "tough girl" fashion. 'Grunch of Giants' is
      about tilting towards women, and I'm already known for the
      "FOSS coven" talk, which has its counterpart in Germany
      (more mnemonics between hacker and witch in that language).

      Synergetics is destined to surface in these new schooling
      facilities that are about prototyping living remotely in
      semi-autonomous encampments, many of them temporary, removable
      without a trace, or much of one. I'm realizing these will
      need to be mixed / multi generation in many cases. Once you
      have families taking to this life style, you'll have many
      generations continuing it. The classic Bucky stuff will be
      seen, in the rear view mirror, as influential, and not just
      because of the domes and spheres, although that's certainly
      a part of it.

      > > I'd like to write more, but I just got a call that the cooks
      > > are short handed and I should head over to the Pink House to
      > > lend a hand. I said I'd do it. Gotta go.
      >
      > A better man than I. I seldom volunteer for _anything_....
      > Peace
      >
      > JBw
      >

      Riding in the freezing cold warms one, as you expend energy.
      Corwin was cooking. I washed pans and chopped stuff, but thought
      we could really use a second bike trailer, so went all the way
      back to my place to get the one my house guest has on loan
      from Duke's Landing, a location in my "Russian novel" (in scare
      quotes cuz not really fiction -- has lots of characters though,
      so Russian-like in that sense).

      I got to the park ahead of Corwin, who was running late, stuck
      on doing the squash which was slow cooking. Good thing I went
      ahead, as he had a flat on the way (might not have if we'd
      gone together? Or was it already punctured?). Satya came
      about the time I did. A New Yorker originally, now a zen monk,
      having studied / practice at a monastery in Japan. Then he
      bummed around India, walked to Ladakh. His friend Alex is
      the son of a Burmese woman you may have heard of, recently
      released from house arrest. Simon showed up too, along with
      several others in the cast.

      I shared about my housemate's plan to test herself in cruel
      winter conditions. These are skilled outdoors people for
      the most part and have lots of good advice. They promised
      to offer more of it when next encountering said survivalist
      fashion model, who verges on being a Bruno it sometimes
      seems (she's a committed artist with a sense of humor).
      Lindsey actually showed up shortly after I'd departed.

      I left the scene soon after Corwin arrived with the squash,
      as I was eager to get to Wanderers, having learned Nirel
      would be there. I haven't seen her in over a year, as
      she's been traveling the world.

      The meeting was dreary (for me -- people had a good time)
      in the sense that it was all about patents, intellectual
      property, patent attorneys, lawyers, infringement, court
      cases, juries... I weary around such talk. Where's the
      sense of community?

      The reason I put Coffee Shops Network (a software and
      business application) in the public domain was to keep
      others from stealing my idea in a way that would exclude
      me from my own network. By firmly affixing my name and
      brands to this work, I'm able to give users and developers
      a shared framework they're free to call home.

      The potential for synergy is enormous.

      Competition will also be evident, as people craft their
      identities in this CSN way. Fashion, ever changing, is
      portrayed as superficial, but there's also something deep
      (deeply grammatical) going on beneath the surface (or
      on the surface, in plain view, if you know how to read
      the signs).

      Kirby
    • coyote_starship
      ... ... Sigh. Like with heal (vs. heel ), another typo, going for the wrong homophone. Should be peek , not peak . I make the very same
      Message 32 of 32 , Nov 27, 2010
        --- In synergeo@yahoogroups.com, "coyote_starship" <kirby.urner@...> wrote:

        << snip >>

        > proudly display what your philanthropic history has been. You're
        > on the record. People get to peak over your shoulder.
        >

        Sigh. Like with "heal" (vs. "heel"), another typo, going for
        the wrong homophone. Should be "peek", not "peak".

        I make the very same mistake below, in this post to the Math Forum:
        http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7315756&tstart=0

        Kirby

        > Once it's possible to vector vendor profits in this way, you'll find
        > people doing some serious study, profiling lots of groups. They'll
        > become connoisseurs, much as foundations are. Getting to think about
        > how to support worthy causes is also a way of thinking about which
        > groups you'll want to join in the field. So CSN is also a recruiting
        > venue.
        >
        > Kirby
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.