(np) surmise: why catastrophe theory is incompatible w/orgonomics...

[Lawrence Bryan]

I recall trying to read a book by Rene' Thom on this maybe 30 years  
ago. It was sort of big then but I don't think it lead to anything  
much in mathematics. Another mathematician - Zeeman, if I recall  
correctly - wrote a nice article in Scientific American about it. The  
latter being a lot more accessible than Thom's book.

Lawrence

On Jun 8, 2007, at 9:54 PM, mikebailey wrote:


not to be totally lazy, here's what I've surmised thus far:

Catastrophe theory - buncha stuff about folding & Taylor series;
is this something like, if you hold a stick and apply bending pressure,
as the pressure increases, the stick will bend more and more - but at
some point, something completely different will happen (the stick  
will break)?

from Wikipedia:
Catastrophe theory analyses [I think that should read "analyses"]
degenerate critical points of the potential function
. points where not just the first derivative, but one or more
higher derivatives of the potential function are also zero.
These are called the germs of the catastrophe geometries.
The degeneracy of these critical points can be unfolded
by expanding the potential function as a Taylor series in small
perturbations of the parameters.

...oh, of course... I like the bit about degeneracy... (sorry)

leaving aside the questions of comparative rigour (something a scientist
would never do, of course...)

Orgonomics - asserts an entity (the Orgone) which falls among the  
many notions
propounded over the years of a) fields and b) life energy
states that life energy is ubiquitous and manipulable;
posits certain characteristics & techniques...orgone accumulation,
orgone detection, cloudbusting....
suggests an identity between the Orgone and the Aether (or at least a
relationship - maybe they are just dating, or perhaps living together)

might have to spend some more time on the aetherometry site & snap up  
a copy of
ISBN 0140222502 (does it define stuff like Taylor series in English,  
or is it
all equations?)...

because I don't see ANY intersection...ie, not a frickin thing to do  
with
each other...

the answer might lie in the details...

...and, um, the fact that I feel the need to again justify my interest
I hope indicates that I'm aware of valid criticisms;

in John Crowley's excellent "Aegypt", the Pierce Moffatt character
teaches Dante to successive classes, and leads off the discussion with -

"what's the first thing you notice about the Inferno/Purgatorio/ 
Paradiso"
(he's amazed when, one year, nobody comes up with "IT'S NOT TRUE")

doesn't mean it can't be studied with profit...or at least some  
enjoyment,
if one likes that sort of thing...

(also wanted to say that so I could quote John Crowley, have bought  
#4 of the
Aegypt tetralogy btw, it's on the shelves...)