"So what about the whole number volumes already! They're not all whole number. What's the fuss?" That's my impatient viewer wondering why I harp on themes in literature.
The intersection of pragmatism and transcendentalism might put American philosophy on the map, but for that to happen, we might need to see Synergetics on more reading lists.
"Thanks but no thanks" say the philosophers. Unless they're using the Bucky stuff around the edges to thrill audiences at conferences. Something about free energy and maybe living forever? In that case the A & B modules are too mundane, too trite. Playing with blocks is for children. But then when do we share A & B modules with children?
In the meantime, for those taking The School of Tomorrow more seriously, we have a kind of fluency to offer, starting with the IVM (sphere packing matrix). We segue to architecture over here, to crystallography over there... to the morphology of the virus. A kind of liberal arts generic literacy -- some call "cultural literacy" -- pops into the foreground, like a duckrabbit.
True enough, they're not all whole number, nor all commensurable with each other. Incommensurability is real. See my Invisible Landscapes series?
However Fuller wasn't buying "the Real Numbers" lock, stock and barrel. What if we stick to shape?
Isn't energy at bottom approximate in the sense of quantized discretely? What if our mathematical concepts took their cues from reality for a change?
Where is the need for infinite precision, or "one over infinity" so to speak? What if we remove "infinity" in most contexts? If it wasn't really there to begin with, except in hand-waving... what of substance changes?
We're still free to compute pi a trillion of digits. No bubbles burst as a result (nor wait for the answer).
Fuller wasn't alone in questioning "real number" metaphysics. In Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics, Wittgenstein elicits a new kind of skepticism regarding what these "foundations" might consist in. "Forms of life?" (On Certainty) "What does that mean?"
Other mathematicians chip away. There's room for ferment.
What I question is holding back the information that's known to check out, just because it comes mixed in with more speculative material, with a potentially shorter half-life.
The Concentric Hierarchy is purely Platonic, all angles without frequency (fixed scale) one might put it (i.e. "pre-frequency"). More accurately, I don't question the holding back so much as adamantly insist it's wrong, ill-advised, cowardly, unprofessional.
At least I'm not the bottleneck, is my attitude.
