Aspies For Freedom

SoulSick Wrote:

Oops hit reply by accident...

Anyhow...

I was thinking about taking Mr fullers ideas and expanding on them, I've had some really **** mind blowing ideas lately that seem to "work" when I apply them, but I'm using my own intuitive geometric reasoning that would look like ignorance to anyone not acquainted to how I'm thinking about geometry, numbers, the universe and time.

I'm thinking about re-writing euclids elements with my own expanded definitions and incorporating, computer science, and boolean concepts and merging ideas and properties from physics/computer science with geometry.

I had this idea while looking at 3D computer graphics, and wondering what "time was" in our real universe, but then started to analyze "discrete time" in a simulation like a 3D game like supreme commander (real time strategy game).

It seems that the virtual world and the real world may have transposable elements, i.e. virtual characteristics of time in a game, may in fact apply to the real world at some level (in some way not yet discovered).

It's pooling in my mind, but I'd need to create a number system which is animated and works in 3D, not just the simple one dimensional, or cartesion co-ordinate systems...

I'd be doing fully 3D multi-vector geometric systems....

Incorporating color (frequency)
Energy-like properties and logic characteristics to geometric shapes, such as points, lines, solids, etc.

The only problem is, it really has to be made and used in 3D, like you were inside a video game for it to really show it's usefulness.

It has been terribly useful to me, and I've used these new ideas to great effect in understanding navigation, but it's all trapped in my visual metaphors (visual comparitive language).

All my ideas are trapped in pictures and animations, not in 1, 2 ,3 of script symbolic mathematical alphabets.

I think there is number-shape equivalence law I've "discovered" (or re-discovered, if someone has already figured it out).

That any number can be represented by a shape and vice versa, therefore, why not make a mathematical system consisting of number-shapes? Shapes that symbols for numbers... and you can use the whole visual spectrum of stuff to do crazy math. Smile

So effectively what you are doing is going:
1 = a blob
2 = another kind of blob
3 = mr blobby
and so on...
I really dont see the point, how does that help maths at all?

This thread shows some activity from some interesting synergeticists!!!

Bucky Fuller's Synergetics is on-line at http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetic...etics.html

I wrote an essay on "Reading Synergetics: Some Tips" which is now on-line at http://www.cjfearnley.com/synergetics.essay.html

The people who are building on Fuller's Synergetics ideas will be interested in the Synergetics Collaborative http://synergeticists.org/ which is a new non-profit dedicated to building upon Full'ers Synergetics. In particular, you may be interested in a Special Session on Buckminster Fuller's Synergetics and Mathematics which will be held at an AMS meeting in March. More information is at http://synergeticists.org/snec.announce....08.03.html

CJ Fearnley

I took a look at the synergetics stuff and by the looks of it, it's pure crackpottery (why do so many people on here think that far-fetched nonsense is a great, illuminating discovery?).

Quote:

Awareness = self + otherness
Awareness = observer + observed

That's how far I can be bothered to go. Down that road lies madness.

I think this debate will have no end, as it is debating a system we haven't yet seen.

I'm curious about your number-shape theory of mathematics, but I can also understand Simens point of view, as the words "number-shape mathematical system" don't actually sound groundbreaking yet. It very well may be, but we'll have to see the system to debate the system.

In other words, lets put the debate on hold until we have something to debate. That way the two of you can raise actual points instead of trying to discredit the other on the basis of vague notions.

EvilZakkie Wrote:

I think this debate will have no end, as it is debating a system we haven't yet seen.

I'm curious about your number-shape theory of mathematics, but I can also understand Simens point of view, as the words "number-shape mathematical system" don't actually sound groundbreaking yet. It very well may be, but we'll have to see the system to debate the system.

In other words, lets put the debate on hold until we have something to debate. That way the two of you can raise actual points instead of trying to discredit the other on the basis of vague notions.

Basically, I looked at a system that is known (the synergetics link, above) and expressed my opinion on it.

Why does everyone on here assume that just because you attack someone's opinions, you're attacking their person? I separate between people and opinions.

SoulSick Wrote:

Simen Wrote:

SoulSick Wrote:

I think geometry is in fact precursor kind of mathematical language to the symbolic math alphabet we use (1,2,3...).

I see no evidence for this claim. People contemplated the natural numbers long before geometry, so there is historical evidence that arithmetic by numbers was invented before geometry.

Further, I see absolutely no reason at all to suppose that geometry logically precedes numbers -- quite the opposite.

Further yet, I see no reason why a clunky formalism based on geometry would be at all helpful.

You're not thinking like a naturalist, if nature is all connected all of the time, and your senses have to develop to te point where you can make intelligable and DISTINCT data-pictures of the environment you exist in, then it followsthat: When you look at / sense the world with your seneses you are receving DATA about the world the geometry is already in the pictures you see... Data has a geometry, you wouldn't know this of course unless you understand boolean algebra and computer science

Any data you detect with your senses is necessarily geometric whether you are aware of it or not.

Actually, I know quite a bit about computer science and boolean algebra, and they have nothing to do with your ideas at all. Don't try to impress me with obscure words.

It reminds me of that anecdote about Diderot and Euler (I don't think there is any evidence that it really happened, but as a metaphor it works). Diderot expressed his views as an atheist, and Euler replied, "Sir, (a+b^n)/n = x; hence God exists, answer please!" to which Diderot, not understanding Euler's mathematics, could not reply.

Which only goes to show that, by throwing in some terms or words your opponent doesn't understand, you can fool them into thinking you have support for your views which they don't understand.

Unfortunately for you, I have a bit of an understanding of your obscurity, enough to know that it is not related to your ideas.

SoulSick Wrote:

Simen Wrote:

I took a look at the synergetics stuff and by the looks of it, it's pure crackpottery (why do so many people on here think that far-fetched nonsense is a great, illuminating discovery?).

Ahh yes... the ENLIGHTENMENET fallacy - the only way to truth is through a "sectarian" doctrine of a rigid method of science - which no one understands or can even articulate. Go read some Paul feyerabend. Scientific discoveries are not the domain of rigid minded acadecians alone, Einstein was a **** patent clerk btw and well outside the trenches of academic rigidity.

This section is all presumption on your part, since I said nothing of the sort.

Quote:

Certain aspects of enlightenmenet thinking were such a crock of bullshit... because it didn't understand SCIENTIFICALLY that there are other ways of thinking can have complex logic and rationality embedded in it, because people are just too lower-cognitive unless you hold their hand and explain it to them step-by-step, their ego's get in the way of true reason and rationality.

You continue by attacking some unspecified Enlightenment ideas I have never expressed.

Quote:

I see things in visual metaphors, or highly complicated geometric pictures, that have extreme amounts of sophisticated data in them that I don't fully understand and have to decode because it's so abstract (i.e. a picture is worth 1000 words).

Well, good for you, I'm sure it's a value asset for your thinking.

Quote:

Some of the stuff I've been doing is very advanced but you can't understand it unless you can read pictographic languages and have a good grasp of electronics, computer science and boolean logic, and all of what I am doing is from an internal personalized objective non-transferable (i.e. because I have to write down the definitions, rules, etc) understanding of a new matehamtical geometric system I am working on, which in fact WORKS, I've used principles from it and they *work*, so when you consider whether or not something is good or bad you have to consider the RESULTS.

You continue to lecture me on what I do and don't understand, which is pure ad hominem.

I was attacking the synergetics stuff as obscure nonsense, but if your ideas are so good, perhaps they aren't obscure nonsense.

Anyway, you can get correct predictions from wrong theories. I can define the addition function as add(1,1) = 2; add(x, y) = x + y^3 - x/3, and get nonsense on other inputs than (1,1).

If your theory makes new, correct predictions, it has been (to some degree or other) verified.

Quote:

Next, in the era of the computer, you can now VIRTUALIZE and play with different systems in an imaginary space, and try out new ideas and concepts to see if they are workable.

Many of histories brightest people journeyed alone... Look at Mr Fuller. I don't necessarily agree with everything he wrote, but he had some neat ideas. Also, the main problem right now iss because you don't understand it, and buckminster didn't do a very good job explaining his ideas, he didn't go be like Euclid and think out the logic of his system, he mish-mashed it together, even I can see the errors in hi work. He had a fairly high IQ and was the president of mensa, but it seemed he never defined his terms, which left everyone going "WTF?".

And yet again, you presume to know what I do and don't understand.

Quote:

Next of course is Bram Cohen, author of bit-torrent, an aspie... he did most of the work on his own and forever changed the **** internet because he knew what he was talking about and put up to make the other people shut-up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bram_Cohen

So? His ideas weren't nonsense. Doesn't mean every self-professed solitary genius is actually a genius.

Quote:

Here's a riddle... to show you that I know what I'm doing...

In boolean logic, what numbers do you use to represent true and false? and why?

Make your answer, and then I will make you *** your pants with a neat discovery I made, using cross disciplinary integration from other fields.

One is true, zero is false. The reason, I suppose, is that it makes intuitive sense when you consider boolean algebra, e.g., when logical AND is multiplication, 1 times 1 is 1, but every variation where either term is 0 becomes 0, and this just happens to be the truth table of logical AND. I suppose the other operations are the same.

SoulSick Wrote:

EvilZakkie Wrote:

I think this debate will have no end, as it is debating a system we haven't yet seen.

I'm curious about your number-shape theory of mathematics, but I can also understand Simens point of view, as the words "number-shape mathematical system" don't actually sound groundbreaking yet. It very well may be, but we'll have to see the system to debate the system.

In other words, lets put the debate on hold until we have something to debate. That way the two of you can raise actual points instead of trying to discredit the other on the basis of vague notions.

Exactly. Although he was the one who had an axe to grind, so I had to jump in... since he's working from total ignorance.

I am not arguing from total ignorance, and I did not, in fact, attack your system that I have yet to see, but rather the one linked, which looks to be superficial nonsense.

SoulSick Wrote:

MadKangaroo Wrote:

So effectively what you are doing is going:
1 = a blob
2 = another kind of blob
3 = mr blobby
and so on...
I really dont see the point, how does that help maths at all?

That's because you're not seeing math for what it is, and how it was formed... i.e. by looking at nature and needing to devise a abstract system to describe and measure shapes.

Check out wikipedia (just stick in "math") and look at the history of mathematics and the definition of math, it is the "science of patterns", but the geometric patterns (of light/energy) came first before we used symbols to describe them.

For you curiousity, google the mayan numeral system "Mayan numerals", I will post some interesting stuff but it will take some time to put together and explain, and you can't see it without pictures and diagrams.

We can do it very easily in the current system of mathematics with vector equations that can draw and measure shapes, then apply calculus. I dont see how changing the simple over to make them look prettier is going revolutionise maths, asides setting back research as people get used to yet another system of counting. If you can explicitly show me the system and demonstrate how its better, then I might be able to see what you are getting at, but at the moment I really cant see the point.

I found your post with a blog search for finite geometry. I have been trying to find references to find out if the geometry theory I invented is original. See http://sidegeo.blogspot.com/ for details. I read Fuller's Synergetics over 20 years ago. I don't think I understood much of it, but it did give me an appreciation for the importance of triangles and tetrahedrons. I also nurtured an interrest in computer graphics. I imagined schemes for graphics engines. In my more mega moods, I imagined artificial intelligence based on geometric constructions. I think those were inspired by the novel Neuromancer, by William Gibson. Recently I have given up on the graphics engine, because I believe they have been done quite well already. See GTS at http://gts.sourceforge.net/ for example. So, then I focused on theory, and came up with sidedness geometry. It is in line with your ideas because, in three dimensions, points do not naturally lie on surfaces. There is just too much space for the points to, by chance, end up on a surface. For more ideas about the unnaturallness of real numbers, see Gregory Chaitin on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svzGGHdqst8

Anyway, keep thinking.

Boolean logic simplifies computers. Your idea seems to only make doing what we can already do more complex.

Is there any advantage whatsoever to your new idea?

But nothing is built on your idea yet. And there's nothing built on that synergetics stuff that I know of, either.

Speaking of which, will you let us see your idea?

SoulSick Wrote:

MadKangaroo Wrote:

SoulSick Wrote:

MadKangaroo Wrote:

So effectively what you are doing is going:
1 = a blob
2 = another kind of blob
3 = mr blobby
and so on...
I really dont see the point, how does that help maths at all?

That's because you're not seeing math for what it is, and how it was formed... i.e. by looking at nature and needing to devise a abstract system to describe and measure shapes.

Check out wikipedia (just stick in "math") and look at the history of mathematics and the definition of math, it is the "science of patterns", but the geometric patterns (of light/energy) came first before we used symbols to describe them.

For you curiousity, google the mayan numeral system "Mayan numerals", I will post some interesting stuff but it will take some time to put together and explain, and you can't see it without pictures and diagrams.

We can do it very easily in the current system of mathematics with vector equations that can draw and measure shapes, then apply calculus. I dont see how changing the simple over to make them look prettier is going revolutionise maths, asides setting back research as people get used to yet another system of counting. If you can explicitly show me the system and demonstrate how its better, then I might be able to see what you are getting at, but at the moment I really cant see the point.

Actually, George boole's books on boolean logic had no practical application for hundreds of years, then claude shannon took a philosophy class, and boom the computer was invented because of the work George boole did on boolean algebra. So your point is quite irrelevant given the history of mathematics that were once irrelevant but then later found significantapplication.

There is no mathematical advantage or revolution at all in what you are suggesting, fundementally you are not actually making anything now. Booles work was actually a new area, you are merely trying to redesign the alphabet we use, as opposed to the methods. Seriously, find something new to spend your time on.

SoulSick Wrote:

That is an incoherent statement

No, it's not. An incoherent statement would be one that is contradictory or cognitively meaningless. The statement contains no logical contradiction and is meaningful.

Quote:

Was there no mathematical advantage to non-euclidean geometry? Was there no mathematical advantage to calculus? Do you even know the history of mathematics? The history of mathematics is a series of ever increasing systems of thought

I agree that MadKangaroo can't really know since you've yet to reveal your system, but from what you'be given us, I see no reason to suppose that your idea is in any way advantagous.

MadKangaroo

cjfsyntropy

Simen

EvilZakkie

Simen

MadKangaroo

individkid

Simen!

Simen

Simen

MadKangaroo

Simen