On Reductionism II

"Reductionism (ultimately, the empirical explanability of everything and a cornerstone of science), has uses that are appropriate, and it also can be used inappropriately. It is appropriately used as a way (one way) of understanding what is empirically known or empirically knowable. When it becomes merely an intellectual 'position' confronting what is not empirically known or knowable, then it becomes very quickly absurd, and also grossly desensitizing and false." (Wendell Berry, "Life Is A Miracle: An Essay Against Modern Superstition", 2000)

"As a meta-discipline, systems science will transfer its content from discipline to discipline and address problems beyond conventional reductionist boundaries. Generalists, qualified to manage today’s problem better than the specialist, could be fostered. With these intentions, systems thinking and systems science should not replace but add, complement and integrate those aspects that seem not to be adequately treated by traditional science." (Lars Skyttner, "General Systems Theory: Ideas and Applications", 2001)

"Reductionism argues that from scientific theories which explain phenomena on one level, explanations for a higher level can be deduced. Reality and our experience can be reduced to a number of indivisible basic elements. Also qualitative properties are possible to reduce to quantitative ones." (Lars Skyttner, "General Systems Theory: Ideas and Applications", 2001)

"Systems thinking expands the focus of the observer, whereas analytical thinking reduces it. In other words, analysis looks into things, synthesis looks out of them. This attitude of systems thinking is often called expansionism, an alternative to classic reductionism. Whereas analytical thinking concentrates on static and structural properties, systems thinking concentrates on the function and behaviour of whole systems. Analysis gives description and knowledge; systems thinking gives explanation and understanding." (Lars Skyttner, "General Systems Theory: Ideas and Applications", 2001)

"Deep change in mental models, or double-loop learning, arises when evidence not only alters our decisions within the context of existing frames, but also feeds back to alter our mental models. As our mental models change, we change the structure of our systems, creating different decision rules and new strategies. The same information, interpreted by a different model, now yields a different decision. Systems thinking is an iterative learning process in which we replace a reductionist, narrow, short-run, static view of the world with a holistic, broad, long-term, dynamic view, reinventing our policies and institutions accordingly." (John D Sterman, "Learning in and about complex systems", Systems Thinking Vol. 3 2003)

"The traditional, scientific method for studying such systems is known as reductionism. Reductionism sees the parts as paramount and seeks to identify the parts, understand the parts and work up from an understanding of the parts to an understanding of the whole. The problem with this is that the whole often seems to take on a form that is not recognizable from the parts. The whole emerges from the interactions between the parts, which affect each other through complex networks of relationships. Once it has emerged, it is the whole that seems to give meaning to the parts and their interactions." (Michael C Jackson, "Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers", 2003)

"There exists an alternative to reductionism for studying systems. This alternative is known as holism. Holism considers systems to be more than the sum of their parts. It is of course interested in the parts and particularly the networks of relationships between the parts, but primarily in terms of how they give rise to and sustain in existence the new entity that is the whole whether it be a river system, an automobile, a philosophical system or a quality system." (Michael C. Jackson, "Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Manager", 2003)

"Gödel's theorem shows conclusively that in pure mathematics reductionism does not work. To decide whether a mathematical statement is true, it is not sufficient to reduce the statement to marks on paper and to study the behavior of the marks. Except in trivial cases, you can decide the truth of a statement only by studying its meaning and its context in the larger world of mathematical ideas." (Freeman Dyson, "The Scientist As Rebel", 2006)

"Complexity has shown that reductionism is limited, in the sense that emergent properties cannot be reduced. In other words, the properties at a given scale cannot be always described completely in terms of properties at a lower scale. This has led people to debate on the reality of phenomena at different scales." (Carlos Gershenson, "Complexity", 2011)

"Holism [is] the art - in contrast with reductionism - of seeing a complex system as a whole. Holism knows the limits to its understanding; it acknowledges that the system has its wildness, its privacy, its own reasons, its defenses against invasive explanation." (David Fleming, "Lean Logic", 2016)

On Reductionism I

"There is, indeed, a specific fault in our system of science, and in the resultant understanding of the natural world. […] This fault is reductionism, the view that effective understanding of a complex system can be achieved by investigating the properties of its isolated parts. The reductionist methodology, which is so characteristic of much of modern research, is not an effective means of analyzing the vast natural systems that are threatened by degradation." (Barry Commoner, "The Closing Circle: Nature, Man and Technology", 1971)

"In the Systems Age we tend to look at things as part of larger wholes rather than as wholes to be taken apart. This is the doctrine of expansionism. Expansionism brings with it the synthetic mode of thought much as reductionism brought with it." (Russell L Ackoff, "Redesigning the future", 1974)

"Science gets most of its information by the process of reductionism, exploring the details, then the details of the details, until all the smallest bits of the structure, or the smallest parts of the mechanism, are laid out for counting and scrutiny. Only when this is done can the investigation be extended to encompass the whole organism or the entire system. So we say. Sometimes it seems that we take a loss, working this way." (Lewis Thomas, "The Medusa and the Snail: More Notes of a Biology Watcher", 1974)

"For any system the environment is always more complex than the system itself. No system can maintain itself by means of a point-for-point correlation with its environment, i.e., can summon enough 'requisite variety' to match its environment. So each one has to reduce environmental complexity - primarily by restricting the environment itself and perceiving it in a categorically preformed way. On the other hand, the difference of system and environment is a prerequisite for the reduction of complexity because reduction can be performed only within the system, both for the system itself and its environment." (Thomas Luckmann & Niklas Luhmann, "The Differentiation of Society", 1977)

"There is a strong current in contemporary culture advocating ‘holistic’ views as some sort of cure-all […] Reductionism implies attention to a lower level while holistic implies attention to higher level. These are intertwined in any satisfactory description: and each entails some loss relative to our cognitive preferences, as well as some gain [...] there is no whole system without an interconnection of its parts and there is no whole system without an environment." (Francisco Varela, "On being autonomous: The lessons of natural history for systems theory", 1977)

"Reductionism is the most natural thing in the world to grasp. It’s simply the belief that a whole can be understood completely if you understand its parts, and the nature of their ‘sum'. No one in her left brain could reject reductionism." (Douglas Hofstadter, "Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid", 1979)

"Simple rules can have complex consequences. This simple rule has such a wealth of implications that it is worth examining in detail. It is the far from self-evident guiding principle of reductionism and of most modern investigations into cosmic complexity. Reductionism will not be truly successful until physicists and cosmologists demonstrate that the large-scale phenomena of the world arise from fundamental physics alone. This lofty goal is still out of reach. There is uncertainty not only in how physics generates the structures of our world but also in what the truly fundamental rules of physics are. (William Poundstone, "The Recursive Universe", 1985)

"The history of atomism is one of reductionism – the effort to reduce all the operations of nature to a small number of laws governing a small number of primordial objects." (Leon M Ledermanm, "The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?", 1993)

"The love of complexity without reductionism makes art; the love of complexity with reductionism makes science." (Edward O. Wilson, "Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge", 1998)

"[...] information feedback about the real world not only alters our decisions within the context of existing frames and decision rules but also feeds back to alter our mental models. As our mental models change we change the structure of our systems, creating different decision rules and new strategies. The same information, processed and interpreted by a different decision rule, now yields a different decision. Altering the structure of our systems then alters their patterns of behavior. The development of systems thinking is a double-loop learning process in which we replace a reductionist, narrow, short-run, static view of the world with a holistic, broad, long-term, dynamic view and then redesign our policies and institutions accordingly." (John D Sterman, "Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world", 2000)

George Sarton - Collected Quotes

"The more science enters into our lives, the more it must be 'humanized', and there is no better way to humanize it than to study its history." (George Sarton, "An Institute for the History of Science and Civilization", Science Vol. 40 (1100), 1917)

"From the point of view of the history of science, transmission is as essential as discovery." (George Sarton, "Introduction to the History of Science" Vol. 2, 1927)

"Mysteries which we have driven outside of the boundaries of our knowledge and which we have located and encompassed, such mysteries will not harm us; on the contrary they will stimulate and inspire us in many ways; the dangerous mysteries are those which are hopelessly mingled with our knowledge, and of which we are perhaps unaware." (George Sarton, "The History of Science and the New Humanism", 1928)

"Science is neither philosophy, nor religion, nor art; it is the totality of positive knowledge, as closely knit as possible; it is as different from its practical applications on the one hand, as it is from idle theorizing and blind faith on the other. It behooves us to make no extravagant claims for it, and to be as humble as we can." (George Sarton, "The History of Science and the New Humanism", 1928)

"Science tends to destroy the darkness where evil and injustice breed, but there is also some element of beauty and poetry in that darkness." (George Sarton, "The History of Science and the New Humanism", 1928)

"Science, like art and religion - neither more nor less - is a form of man's reaction against nature. It is an attempt to explain nature in its own terms, that is, to evidence its unity, wholeness, and congruency." (George Sarton, "The History of Science and the New Humanism", 1928)

"The study of history, and especially of the history of science, may thus be regarded, not only as a source of wisdom and humanism, but also as a regulator for our consciences: it helps us not to be complacent, arrogant, too sanguine of success, and yet remain grateful and hopeful, and never to cease working quietly for the accomplishment of our own task." (George Sarton, "The History of Science and the New Humanism", 1928)

"Mathematicians and other scientists, however great they may be, do not know the future. Their genius may enable them to project their purpose ahead of them; it is as if they had a special lamp, unavailable to lesser men, illuminating their path; but even in the most favorable cases the lamp sends only a very small cone of light into the infinite darkness." (George Sarton, "The Study of the History of Mathematics", 1936)

"Mathematics gives to science its innermost unity and cohesion, which can never be entirely replaced with props and buttresses or with roundabout connections, no matter how many of these may be introduced." (George Sarton, "The Study of the History of Mathematics", 1936)

"The concatenations of mathematical ideas are not divorced from life, far from it, but they are less influenced than other scientific ideas by accidents, and it is perhaps more possible, and more permissible, for a mathematician than for any other man to secrete himself in a tower of ivory." (George Sarton, "The Study of the History of Mathematics", 1936)

"The main source of mathematical invention seems to be within man rather than outside of him: his own inveterate and insatiable curiosity, his constant itching for intellectual adventure; and likewise the main obstacles to mathematical progress seem to be also within himself; his scandalous inertia and laziness, his fear of adventure, his need of conformity to old standards, and his obsession by mathematical ghosts." (George Sarton, "The Study of the History of Mathematics", 1936)

"The history of science is the only history which can illustrate the progress of mankind. In fact, progress has no definite and unquestionable meaning in fields other than the fields of science." (George Sarton,"The Study of The History of Science", 1936)

"The great intellectual division of mankind is not along geographical or racial lines, but between those who understand and practice the experimental method and those who do not understand and do not practice it." (George Sarton, "A History of Science", 1948)

"A deed happens in a definite place at a definite time, but if it be sufficiently great and pregnant, its virtue radiates everywhere in time and space." (George Sarton, "A History of Science" Vol. 2, 1959)

"Men of science have made abundant mistakes of every kind; their knowledge has improved only because of their gradual abandonment of ancient errors, poor approximations, and premature conclusions." (George Sarton, "A History of Science" Vol. 2, 1959)

"The main duty of the historian of mathematics, as well as his fondest privilege, is to explain the humanity of mathematics, to illustrate its greatness, beauty and dignity, and to describe how the incessant efforts and accumulated genius of many generations have built up that magnificent monument, the object of our most legitimate pride as men, and of our wonder, humility, and thankfulness, as individuals. The study of the history of mathematics will not make better mathematicians but gentler ones, it will enrich their minds, mellow their hearts, and bring out their finer qualities." (George Sarton, The American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 102, No. 4, 1995)

On Attractors III

"Very often a strange attractor is a fractal object, whose geometric structure is invariant under the time evolution maps."  (David Ruelle, "Chaotic Evolution and Strange Attractors: The statistical analysis of time series for deterministic nonlinear systems", 1989)

"First, strange attractors look strange: they are not smooth curves or surfaces but have 'non-integer dimension' - or, as Benoit Mandelbrot puts it, they are fractal objects. Next, and more importantly, the motion on a strange attractor has sensitive dependence on initial condition. Finally, while strange attractors have only finite dimension, the time-frequency analysis reveals a continuum of frequencies." (David Ruelle, "Chance and Chaos", 1991)

"What is an attractor? It is the set on which the point P, representing the system of interest, is moving at large times (i.e., after so-called transients have died out). For this definition to make sense it is important that the external forces acting on the system be time independent (otherwise we could get the point P to move in any way we like). It is also important that we consider dissipative systems (viscous fluids dissipate energy by self-friction). Dissipation is the reason why transients die out. Dissipation is the reason why, in the infinite-dimensional space representing the system, only a small set (the attractor) is really interesting." (David Ruelle, "Chance and Chaos", 1991)

"What we now call chaos is a time evolution with sensitive dependence on initial condition. The motion on a strange attractor is thus chaotic. One also speaks of deterministic noise when the irregular oscillations that are observed appear noisy, but the mechanism that produces them is deterministic." (David Ruelle, "Chance and Chaos", 1991)

"The key to making discontinuity emerge from smoothness is the observation that the overall behavior of both static and dynamical systems is governed by what's happening near the critical points. These are the points at which the gradient of the function vanishes. Away from the critical points, the Implicit Function Theorem tells us that the behavior is boring and predictable, linear, in fact. So it's only at the critical points that the system has the possibility of breaking out of this mold to enter a new mode of operation. It's at the critical points that we have the opportunity to effect dramatic shifts in the system's behavior by 'nudging' lightly the system dynamics, one type of nudge leading to a limit cycle, another to a stable equilibrium, and yet a third type resulting in the system's moving into the domain of a 'strange attractor'. It's by these nudges in the equations of motion that the germ of the idea of discontinuity from smoothness blossoms forth into the modern theory of singularities, catastrophes and bifurcations, wherein we see how to make discontinuous outputs emerge from smooth inputs." (John L Casti, "Reality Rules: Picturing the world in mathematics", 1992)

"An attractor can be seen as a box of space in which movement could take place or not. When an object, represented by a point, enters the space, the point does not leave, unless a strong enough force is applied to pull it out. An attractor, like a magnet, has an effective range in which it can draw in objects, known as its basin. Some attractors are stronger than others, and stronger attractors have a wider basin. [...] A repellor is also a box of space, but it has the opposite effect on traveling points. Any point that gets too close to it is deflected away from the epicenter. It does not matter where the traveling point goes, so long as it goes away. Thus repellors characterize an unstable pattern of behavior." (Stephen J Guastello & Larry S Liebovitch, "Introduction to Nonlinear Dynamics and Complexity" [in "Chaos and Complexity in Psychology"], 2009)

"An attractor is regarded as a stable structure because all the points within it follow the same rules of motion. There are four principal types of attractors: the fixed point, the limit cycle, toroidal attractors, and chaotic attractors. Each type reflects a distinctly different type of movement that occurs within it. Repellors and saddles are closely related structures that are not structurally stable." (Stephen J Guastello & Larry S Liebovitch, "Introduction to Nonlinear Dynamics and Complexity" [in "Chaos and Complexity in Psychology"], 2009)

"In many nonlinear systems, however, small changes of certain parameters may produce Dramatic changes in the basic characteristics of the phase portrait. Attractors may disappear, or change into one another, or new attractors may suddenly appear. Such systems are said to be structurally unstable, and the critical points of instability are called 'bifurcation points', because they are points in the system’s evolution where a fork suddenly appears and the system branches off in a new direction. Mathematically, bifurcation points mark sudden changes in the system’s phase portrait. Physically, they correspond to points of instability at which the system changes abruptly and new forms of order suddenly appear." (Fritjof Capra, "The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision", 2014)

"It is evident that chaotic behavior, in the new scientific sense of the term, is very different from random, erratic motion. With the help of strange attractors a distinction can be made between mere randomness, or 'noise', and chaos. Chaotic behavior is deterministic and patterned, and strange attractors allow us to transform the seemingly random data into distinct visible shapes." (Fritjof Capra, "The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision", 2014)

"The impossibility of predicting which point in phase space the trajectory of the Lorenz attractor will pass through at a certain time, even though the system is governed by deterministic equations, is a common feature of all chaotic systems. However, this does not mean that chaos theory is not capable of any predictions. We can still make very accurate predictions, but they concern the qualitative features of the system’s behavior rather than the precise values of its variables at a particular time. The new mathematics thus represents the shift from quantity to quality that is characteristic of systems thinking in general. Whereas conventional mathematics deals with quantities and formulas, nonlinear dynamics deals with qualities and patterns." (Fritjof Capra, "The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision", 2014)

Geometrical Figures XIV: Torus

"But it is a third geometry from which quantity is completely excluded and which is purely qualitative; this is analysis situs. In this discipline, two figures are equivalent whenever one can pass from one to the other by a continuous deformation; whatever else the law of this deformation may be, it must be continuous. Thus, a circle is equivalent to an ellipse or even to an arbitrary closed curve, but it is not equivalent to a straight-line segment since this segment is not closed. A sphere is equivalent to any convex surface; it is not equivalent to a torus since there is a hole in a torus and in a sphere there is not. Imagine an arbitrary design and a copy of this same design executed by an unskilled draftsman; the properties are altered, the straight lines drawn by an inexperienced hand have suffered unfortunate deviations and contain awkward bends. From the point of view of metric geometry, and even of projective geometry, the two figures are not equivalent; on the contrary, from the point of view of analysis situs, they are." (Henri Poincaré, "Dernières pensées", 1913)

"The relation of betweenness on the torus is undetermined for curves that cannot be contracted to a point [e. g., circles around a doughnut hole], i. e., for three of such curves it is not uniquely determined which of them lies between the other two [...] This indeterminateness [...] has the consequence that such a curve [alone] does not divide the surface of the torus into two separate domains; between points to the 'right' and to the 'left' of the line." (Hans Reichenbach, "The Philosophy of Space and Time", 1928) 

"Regarding stability, the state trajectories of a system tend to equilibrium. In the simplest case they converge to one point (or different points from different initial states), more commonly to one (or several, according to initial state) fixed point or limit cycle(s) or even torus(es) of characteristic equilibrial behaviour. All this is, in a rigorous sense, contingent upon describing a potential, as a special summation of the multitude of forces acting upon the state in question, and finding the fixed points, cycles, etc., to be minima of the potential function. It is often more convenient to use the equivalent jargon of 'attractors' so that the state of a system is 'attracted' to an equilibrial behaviour. In any case, once in equilibrial conditions, the system returns to its limit, equilibrial behaviour after small, arbitrary, and random perturbations." (Gordon Pask, "Different Kinds of Cybernetics", 1992)

"Since the ellipse is a closed curve it has a total length, λ say, and therefore f(l + λ) = f(l). The elliptic function f is periodic, with 'period' λ, just as the sine function is periodic with period 2π. However, as Gauss discovered in 1797, elliptic functions are even more interesting than this: they have a second, complex period. This discovery completely changed the face of calculus, by showing that some functions should be viewed as functions on the plane of complex numbers. And just as periodic functions on the line can be regarded as functions on a periodic line - that is, on the circle - elliptic functions can be regarded as functions on a doubly periodic plane - that is, on a 2-torus." (John Stillwell, "Yearning for the impossible: the surpnsing truths of mathematics", 2006) 

"[…] topology is concerned precisely with those properties of geometric figures that do not change when the figures are transformed. Intersections of lines, for example, remain intersections, and the hole in a torus (doughnut) cannot be transformed away. Thus a doughnut may be transformed topologically into a coffee cup (the hole turning into a handle) but never into a pancake. Topology, then, is really a mathematics of relationships, of unchangeable, or 'invariant', patterns." (Fritjof Capra, "The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision", 2014)

Geometrical Figures XIII: Cones

"The circle in the moon which divides the dark and the bright portions is least when the cone comprehending both the sun and the moon has its vertex at our eye." (Aristarchus of Samos, "On the Sizes and Distances of the Sun and the Moon", cca. 250 BC)

"Two equal spheres are comprehended by one and the same cylinder, and two unequal spheres by one and the same cone which has its vertex in the direction of the lesser sphere; and the straight line drawn through the centres of the spheres is at right angles to each of the circles in which the surface of the cylinder, or of the cone, touches the spheres." (Aristarchus of Samos, "On the Sizes and Distances of the Sun and the Moon", cca. 250 BC)

"Architecture is the masterly, correct and magnificent play of masses brought together in light. Our eyes are made to see forms in light; light and shade reveal these forms; cubes, cones, spheres, cylinders or pyramids are the great primary forms which light reveals to advantage; the image of these is distinct and tangible within us without ambiguity. It is for this reason that these are beautiful forms, the most beautiful forms. Everybody is agreed to that, the child, the savage and the metaphysician." (Charles-Edouard Jeanneret [Le Corbusier], "Towards a New Architecture", 1923)

"Two kinds of sets turn up in geometry. First of all, in geometry we ordinarily talk about the properties of some set of geometric figures. For example, the theorem stating that the diagonals of a parallelogram bisect each other relates to the set of all parallelograms. Secondly, the geometric figures are themselves sets composed of the points occurring within them. We can therefore speak of the set of all points contained within a given circle, of the set of all points within a given cone, etc." (Naum Ya. Vilenkin, "Stories about Sets", 1968)

"What is the shape of space? Is it flat, or is it bent? Is it nicely laid out, or is it warped and shrunken? Is it finite, or is it infinite? Which of the following does space resemble more: (a) a sheet of paper, (b) an endless desert, (c) a soap bubble, (d) a doughnut, (e) an Escher drawing, (f) an ice cream cone, (g) the branches of a tree, or (h) a human body?" (Rudy Rucker, "The Fourth Dimension: Toward a Geometry of Higher Reality", 1984)

"Why is geometry often described as cold and dry? One reason lies in its inability to describe the shape of a cloud, a mountain, a coastline, or a tree. Clouds are not spheres, mountains are not cones, coastlines are not circles, and bark is not smooth, nor does lightning travel in straight line. [...] Nature exhibits not simply a higher degree but an altogether different level of complexity." (Benoît B Mandelbrot, 1984)

"To a mathematician, an object possesses symmetry if it retains its form after some transformation. A circle, for example, looks the same after any rotation; so a mathematician says that a circle is symmetric, even though a circle is not really a pattern in the conventional sense - something made up from separate, identical bits. Indeed the mathematician generalizes, saying that any object that retains its form when rotated - such as a cylinder, a cone, or a pot thrown on a potter's wheel - has circular symmetry." (Ian Stewart & Martin Golubitsky,"Fearful Symmetry: Is God a Geometer?", 1992)

"Topology is a geometry in which all lengths, angles, and areas can be distorted at will. Thus a triangle can be continuously transformed into a rectangle, the rectangle into a square, the square into a circle, and so on. Similarly, a cube can be transformed into a cylinder, the cylinder into a cone, the cone into a sphere. Because of these continuous transformations, topology is known popularly as 'rubber sheet geometry'. All figures that can be transformed into each other by continuous bending, stretching, and twisting are called 'topologically equivalent'." (Fritjof Capra, "The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision", 2014)

Rudy Rucker - Collected Quotes

"In the initial stages of research, mathematicians do not seem to function like theorem-proving machines. Instead, they use some sort of mathematical intuition to ‘see’ the universe of mathematics and determine by a sort of empirical process what is true. This alone is not enough, of course. Once one has discovered a mathematical truth, one tries to find a proof for it." (Rudy Rucker, "Infinity and the Mind: The science and philosophy of the infinite", 1982)

"The study of infinity is much more than a dry academic game. The intellectual pursuit of the absolute infinity is, as Georg Cantor realized, a form of the soul's quest for God. Whether or not the goal is ever reached, an awareness of the process brings enlightenment." (Rudy Rucker, "Infinity and the Mind: The science and philosophy of the infinite", 1982)

"At the most elemental level, reality evanesces into something called Schröedinger's Wave Function: a mathematical abstraction which is best represented as a pattern in an infinite-dimensional space, Hilbert Space. Each point of the Hilbert Space represents a possible state of affairs. The wave function for some one physical or mental system takes the form of, let us say, a coloring in of Hilbert Space. The brightly colored parts represent likely states for the system, the dim parts represent less probable states of affairs." (Rudy Rucker, "The Sex Sphere", 1983)

"The space of our universe is the hypersurface of a vast expanding hypersphere." (Rudy Rucker, "The Sex Sphere", 1983)

"What is the shape of space? Is it flat, or is it bent? Is it nicely laid out, or is it warped and shrunken? Is it finite, or is it infinite? Which of the following does space resemble more: (a) a sheet of paper, (b) an endless desert, (c) a soap bubble, (d) a doughnut, (e) an Escher drawing, (f) an ice cream cone, (g) the branches of a tree, or (h) a human body?" (Rudy Rucker, "The Fourth Dimension: Toward a Geometry of Higher Reality", 1984)

"A photon is a wavy yet solid little package that can zip through empty space without the benefit of any invisible jelly vibrating underfoot." (Rudy Rucker, "The Fourth Dimension: Toward a Geometry of Higher Reality", 1984)

"The world is colors and motion, feelings and thought [...] and what does math have to do with it? No much, if "math" means being bored in high school, but in truth mathematics is the one universal science. Mathematics is the study of pure pattern, and everything in the cosmos is a kind of pattern." (Rudy Rucker, "Mind Tools", 1987)

On Topology VII

"General or point set topology can be thought of as the abstract study of the ideas of nearness and continuity. This is done in the first place by picking out in elementary geometry those properties of nearness that seem to be fundamental and taking them as axioms." (Andrew H Wallace, "Differential Topology: First Steps", 1968)

"Topology deals with those properties of curves, surfaces, and more general aggregates of points that are not changed by continuous stretching, squeezing, or bending. To a topologist, a circle and a square are the same, because either one can easily be bent into the shape of the other. In three dimensions, a circle and a closed curve with an overhand knot in it are topologically different, because no amount of bending, squeezing, or stretching will remove the knot." (Edward N Lorenz, "The Essence of Chaos", 1993)

"A crucial difference between topology and geometry lies in the set of allowable transformations. In topology, the set of allowable transformations is much larger and conceptually much richer than is the set of Euclidean transformations. All Euclidean transformations are topological transformations, but most topological transformations are not Euclidean. Similarly, the sets of transformations that define other geometries are also topological transformations, but many topological transformations have no counterpart in these geometries. It is in this sense that topology is a generalization of geometry." (John Tabak, "Beyond Geometry: A new mathematics of space and form", 2011)

"Although topology grew out of geometry - at least in the sense that it was initially concerned with sets of geometric points - it quickly evolved to include the study of sets for which no geometric representation is possible. This does not mean that topological results do not apply to geometric objects. They do. Instead, it means that topological results apply to a very wide class of mathematical objects, only some of which have a geometric interpretation." (John Tabak, "Beyond Geometry: A new mathematics of space and form", 2011)

"[…] topologies are determined by the way the neighborhoods are defined. Neighborhoods, not individual points, are what matter. They determine the topological structure of the parent set. In fact, in topology, the word point conveys very little information at all." (John Tabak, "Beyond Geometry: A new mathematics of space and form", 2011)

"What distinguishes topological transformations from geometric ones is that topological transformations are more 'primitive'. They retain only the most basic properties of the sets of points on which they act." (John Tabak, "Beyond Geometry: A new mathematics of space and form", 2011)

"Topology is a geometry in which all lengths, angles, and areas can be distorted at will. Thus a triangle can be continuously transformed into a rectangle, the rectangle into a square, the square into a circle, and so on. Similarly, a cube can be transformed into a cylinder, the cylinder into a cone, the cone into a sphere. Because of these continuous transformations, topology is known popularly as 'rubber sheet geometry'. All figures that can be transformed into each other by continuous bending, stretching, and twisting are called 'topologically equivalent'." (Fritjof Capra, "The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision", 2014)

"[…] topology is concerned precisely with those properties of geometric figures that do not change when the figures are transformed. Intersections of lines, for example, remain intersections, and the hole in a torus (doughnut) cannot be transformed away. Thus a doughnut may be transformed topologically into a coffee cup (the hole turning into a handle) but never into a pancake. Topology, then, is really a mathematics of relationships, of unchangeable, or 'invariant', patterns." (Fritjof Capra, "The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision", 2014)