Pro Theory a la BF Fuller

[ProKeymaster]

Pro Theory a la BF Fuller

stratavarious – ‘Pro Theory a la BF Fuller’

Hi Pro hoping you are well, after discussing your ideas with a couple of people they felt that your exposition was rather simplistic. I thought they missed the point. Wouldn’t any theory of everything have to be simple? Simple in the sense that it would have to be most basic.

Anyhow your ideas appeal to me perhaps because I’ve read a lot of Buckminster Fuller. Like tonight I was at it again. What do you think of him Pro? Fullers Synergetics seems to express some of your ideas to me somehow. For example positive negative neutral, 3 points, a triangle. The smallest figure that encloses a space. But do the 3 points of a triangle relate at all to positive negative neutral? I don’t see how, except that as those 3 points enclose a space, perhaps positive negative neutral encloses an idea, or a area of energy.

As Fuller puts it; the minimal system with the fewest possible points is the tetrahedron, because it has an outside and an inside, but then so does the triangle with 3 points. With the tetrahedron we just add another point, the height. Then we have 4 points, which always represents the Universe. He says that Gravity networks points of interest into systems of interrelated thoughts, I’m sure there’s a triangle (3 points) around somewhere there. Anyhow just some kind of random thoughts about Pro Theory, I just wondered how you consider Fullers’ ideas. Take care. Marc.

Pro – ‘Re: Pro Theory a la BF Fuller’

Hello Marc, I’m well thanks. Good to see you back. Yes, a lot of people think my explanation is rather simplistic actually, but in my opinion the universe is simplistic, or at least simple to understand. You’re right as well, a TOE must by its very nature be simple enough to cover literally everything, this is a key point.

I used to write things like if we can postulate that atomic matter is theoretically composed of three forces or entities… but then I started writing in simple terms as I don’t believe in complication or equations either as both are relative to human existence. By this I mean that I doubt God works in equations and I also doubt that the universe does either.

Equations and measurement are invented by us humans. Although they may be accurate and interesting they’re not a TOE as they’re too complicated and not simple enough to be beautiful and profound.A famous person once said Any fool can write a long book but it takes a real talent to write a good short one. I’m also of the KISS persuasion, which stands for Keep It Simple Stupid.

The triangle is known as the magical and perfect shape because as you say its the smallest number of points that enclose a given space. If you look at every joint on your body, your lower and upper leg only work because they join at the knee, they are triangular. The same can be said for all of your finger joints and your arms too, the elbow is the neutral point in the middle. This is also why the triangle is used so often in construction, its so strong as its three points, not four, ten, twenty, but three.

So in answer to your question, negative, positive, and neutral are only words used to describe anything that can be described in three ways. Up, down, or not moving are three other words to the same purpose, as are left, right, and nowhere (staying still). On the subject of gravity, yes I think there is a triangle there somewhere. My take on gravity is again very simplistic I’m afraid.

Gravity is one part of a three pronged force (triangular if you will) that is observed on its own without considering its opposite (repulsion) and neutral potentials (neither attractive nor repulsive). All forces can move in three ways, left right or not, up down or not, attractive repulsive or not ad infinitum. I’ve never heard of Buckminster Fuller I don’t think but Id like to learn about his ideas, sounds interesting to me. I hope this explains my ideas somewhat better for you Marc. Pro.

TriPower – ‘Re: Pro Theory a la BF Fuller’

Hi Marc! I know this thread is very old and you might not even realize I’ve responded. Anyway…..To conceptually understand how 3 points of triangle relate to positive, negative and neutral view it this way: Name your first point P Name your second point -P that is to say it is not the point P already marked. Name the third point -(P) and -(-P). This is saying that the third point is not the point P and not the point named not P (- P) (P), -(P) and -(P) + -(-P). If we look at this third point mathematically we get: -(P) + -(-P) =-P + P = 0. The word neutral is confusing but the best way to view this state is to say it is not positive and not negative but something else. Neutral does not mean that it does nothing within the whole dynamic.

[Author]

Posts