Into the Synergetic strategies comes a relatively short time ago historically, Euler, and Euler realized an extraordinary pattern generalization. Euler doesn't phrase it in these words, but I will give you my own phrasing of what Euler said. He said "All visual experiences can be reduced to three fundamental aspects. There are visual experiences that are trajectories something is in motion leaves a trail; or, I scratch that's leaving a trail, or I leave a deposit of an amount of chalk that's a trail. There are trajectories, and where two trajectories cross we get a fix. That will give you a location. And, if then, a plurality of lines crosses the same line and comes back and crosses itself and has then a perimeter, a closure, then you have areas. And he said then that lines, and areas, and crossings, or fixes, are never to be confused one with another, and all visual experiences are reducible into those three. So you can look at any picture you've ever seen, and I would say it does not include the color it could be any color; and looking at that picture you can say, consider that line, that's an outline of a face. You can decide that this is a crossing or a point (it would be the same), it is not an area, but if the point is big enough you think it's an area and you can make a line around it; and Euler found that when you decided what it is you are looking at in the picture and you take inventory that is a line, that is an area, and that is a crossing. Then, he said, the numbers of the crossings, which he also, because lines are crossing and converging as they cross, called a vertex coming towards one another, indicating, working towards a point; so he said, the number of vertexes plus the numbers of areas (if it's a flat picture on the wall) will equal the number of lines plus the number one.But, he said, if you recognize than that the picture is on the wall, the wall is a part of some kind of a polyhedral phenomena. So, I say then that the picture, I see the picture, then, has an edge and a back to it, and seems to be a very asymmetrical polyhedron, but that whole blackboard and its wheels, and I deal then with what I'm looking at, as a polyhedron. Then, he said, the numbers of the crossings plus the numbers of the areas equal the numbers of the lines plus the number two. It is absolutely constant. Then, he said, if you put a hole thru the system, like the hole in a donut, or coring an apple, then the numbers of the crossings or vertexes, plus the number of the areas are equal to the numbers of the lines.Well, this is a very extraordinary kind of a total capability now. You know the behavior of the whole this is all there is, there isn't any more; and if you know something is out there you can find out about the others.Then we have in chemistry, Willard Gibbs, and Willard Gibbs said that crystalline, liquid and gaseous states; that these have an inter-relationship. We call it the "phase rule," which is very similar then to the Euler this plus this equals this plus two. And, I have now been able, as I will go on with you in the hours and days to come, I am going to give you then the topological identification of the Willard Gibbs phase rule. It's not the appropriate time for us to do it here, but what I'm getting at is, I've given you three Grand Synergetic Strategies, where you know the behavior of a whole, there is something you have observed about the whole, and you know some of the parts you can find out about other parts. This is a very, very powerful matter. I find that our whole education system around the world is organized on the basis of the little child being ignorant. Assuming that the little child that's born is going to have to be taught, in a sense it's an empty container, waiting for information to be given to it from the grown-ups; and so the little child demonstrates time and again an interest in the whole Universe. A child is very enthusiastic about the planetarium. A little child will ask the most beautiful questions about total Universe,, continually embarrassing the grown ups who have become very specialized and can't answer great comprehensive questions. We find the child then, with its propensity to comprehend totally, ready to be Synergetic, humans have the proclivity to be Synergetic, and yet, our education is to say, "Never mind, darling, about that Universe, come in here and I'm going to give you an A and B and a C, and then if you learn that well I'll give you a D and an E and an F. We keep adding to the parts. We do what we call building up a body of knowledge of brick on brick. And, this all both perplexed me and stimulated me into thinking about how we might somehow or other reorganize our self-education, because education is in the end a self-educating. The experiences stimulate, but then the significance in the experience has to be apprehended and then comprehended by the individual and the Synergetic educational system, then, became of great excitation to me and I wondered how we might be able then to it seemed logical, if you could start with Universe itself. Let's just start with the whole, and then we'll have no variables left out. So I felt that we would have to have a definition of Universe and incidentally as I disciplined myself along these lines starting almost a half century ago, I said, I must never use a word that I cannot really relate to experience. I must be able to define each word that I use, and if I don't have a good definition going back to experience, I must give it up. So I said, I either have got to give up the word Universe, or define it on an experiential basis.Now, we find that Eddington defining Universe no, Eddington defining Science, and he says Science is the attempt to set in order the facts of experience the raw materials of experience. I found another very great scientists, and I'm quite certain that he was unaware of Eddington's statement, I cannot really certify this, but the man was relatively remote, and it was Ernst Mach, the physicist of Vienna and Ernst Mach, the physicist of Vienna is a man who the name "Mach number" as we come to ultrasonic speed is named for Ernst Mach. Mach, the physicist said: "Physics is arranging experience in the most economical order because the physicist has discovered, that absolutely unique to nature, is that nature always does things in the most economical ways. There are many ways of talking about this, the principle of least resistance or least effort, but she is always most economical. However, this is not a "yes" "No" "Stop" "Go" affair. We find as you are going to go on with me, that there are a plurality of equally economical alternatives optional to every event in Universe a plurality of them. But Mach said, Nature will use one of those equally most economical ways.So the physicist then, was concerned with the economy of arrangement of experiences, and Eddington, the scientist general interested in experience all experiences, and he didn't specify he said arranging experiences in order. Now a mathematician such as Boole Boole developed the concept of the mathematicians to a little further degree while the mathematicians had been unable to find any grand strategy approach to gain information from, in a logical matter, they find it expedient to, then, assume the most absurd condition, and then gradually eliminate the improbability of the most utterly absurd this is a little less absurd. If they can get down to something that might be reasonable, this is a way of sharpening up this reductio ad absurdum. We have then a Boole, able to introduce non, most not-economical order. I just want you to understand that general science might then trying to put experiences in order, but they may not be the most economical that's the difference between the physicist and the mathematician, then, would be the physicist is only interest in the most economical those are the only ones that really correspond to the way nature is behaving; the absurd is what Nature doesn't do; which is very fortuitous on the part of the mathematician to employ such a strategy.Now, we have Einstein saying the beginning and the end is an experience. Experience becomes, quite clearly, THE raw material of all science. And, this would mean it is experimentally evidencible. And once you've learned how it behaves, you're going to be able to repeat the experiment and that behavior is manifest, so that I then felt that it would be very necessary to describe Universe in the terms of experience. So I said, what do I mean by the word Universe? I said, I must mean the aggregate of all of humanity's consciously apprehended and communicated experiences. That would be the whole roll of stuff. What else could I mean? And at first when I said that quite a few years ago, I know I, myself, and many others felt, that maybe it's inadequate you've left something out there. They said you've left out dreams. And I said, No, it's part of it I said the aggregate of all experiences, we have experienced dreaming. We also experience becoming. We've experienced that the number of words in the dictionary increase every day because it's part of our experience of continually discovering a further another facet of the information. So, I can't find anything that has really been left out of the definition. And if you can find anything, tell me about it, and it's already going to be one of our experiences, so that it seems to work pretty well; and having then developed this scientific definition of Universe, I then said I have a way now of dealing in totality. I know what it is.I found it very interesting that Einstein, then, sought and did define "physical Universe," in contradistinction to "comprehensive Universe." Because he differentiated between the physical and the metaphysical, and he said he was only concerned, really with the physical, because the physical can be coped with experimental evidence, you can reproduce the experiment. But, I also say that you and I do have metaphysical experiences. He defined Science, rather, his physical energy physical is energy, energy associative and energy disassociative; and both turnaroundable. Note the disassociative could be come associative, radiation could be reflected and through lens reconcentrated and so forth. So that Einstein's physical Universe consisted entirely of energy energy associative as matter and energy disassociative as radiation, and the, and one transformable into the other. We have, then, the physical Universe of Einstein, being all energetic, as he said, usually it's called ponderable, it was weighable, but we find that weighing is then the effect of a lever, and gravity can pull, but electromagnetics could pull equally; so when we get into electromagnetics, we simply say that anything that is physical can be identified by moving a needle. We can get actually a physical indicator of the presence of the physical.But, the metaphysical does not move needles. Now, the metaphysical experience is a very preponderant one all that is going on in this room between you and I is metaphysical what we call "understanding" is utterly metaphysical. There are no arrows, there is nothing going on to really weigh or indicate, really understanding. I find it is a very extraordinary matter; I can see your eyes physically, and your eyes will communicate to me as my tongue can wag and make sounds over the air waves, which gives you some kind of words, and so forth, but the understanding is not physical. Einstein did not try to include the metaphysical in his definition of Universe, but he defined the physical Universe the following way, stimulated by experiences which had come in great prominence in his time at the turn of the century. Where he was very much impressed by what you call the Brownian movement, the absolute constant motions in the liquids. He was very impressed with Black Body Radiation but he was particularly impressed by the measurement of the speeds of radiation, both light and other forms of radiation in vacuo, linearly in vacuo, and finding that they were all the same speed. Einstein, I want to identify, what he thought about these stimulants that I gave you, in the terms of previous thinking proclivities of humans. We have the human beings over great ages seeing smoke, seeing steam in nature, seeing metals. We have a very extraordinary time when Priestly the priest-scientist undertook to isolate fire under a bell jar, because up to this time there had been four mystical elements: the air, earth, water and fire; and he felt that fire might be a chemical element, and he gave it a temporary working name, and he then set about to isolate this fire under a bell jar. And he weighed the items that he was going to ignite, and then ignited them, and when the fire was over, he found that the products under there weighed more than the weight that they had put in. We have Lavoisier explaining what had happened in the following manner: He said that they had not weighed the air under the jar. Up till this time all the chemical elements then known to human beings were metals, they were iron, copper, silver, zinc and so forth. There were eleven of them, and they were very easy to identify. For Lavoisier to say that the nothingness under the bell jar consisted of a plurality of invisible chemical elements, and that one of them had separated out and joined then in with the other inputs of the fire separating from the other, and he gave it the name "oxygen".This is, to me, one of the most extraordinary metaphysical jumps in history, for a human being to assume that the non-metal "nothingness" consisted of a plurality of "somethings", and "something" so fundamental as to be actually rated an element was extraordinary conceptioning. He then went on to show that this is exactly that the oxygen joined with the mercury and you had mercury oxide. He showed that what you called iron ore was simply when the oxygen was joined, you take the oxygen away and there is your iron. He went on demonstrating this oxygen joining so that combustion really was oxidation. So that we have then Lavoisier's explanation then enlightened all those who ever had an experience really about metallurgy. You'd had good luck in having fire and melting metals out, suddenly it gave chemical controls to metallurgy. It also explained what combustion was. It also explained what steam was, it was water vapor where you had the associating of the oxygen. Out of this you could not have avoided inventing the steam engine, out of the new metal and atmosphere of science and the steam engine came along very shortly. And with the steam engine, the masters of the water-ocean world, three quarters of it covered with water, with the lands all divided, and the men who had enough power to command the carpenters, and the metal workers to produce a ship and to build a great ship; having developed this design of it through eons of experience of the sea, imagine that anyone did constitute an adequate ship, to be able to send it to great distances, to integrate the resources which were very different in the different parts of the world, bring about the Synergetic interaction in one place with another, and suddenly what was at home that didn't seem to be of much value to anybody is suddenly of very great value. Masters of the water-ocean world suddenly had steam and didn't have to wait for wind in their sails, outperformed completely the people who still had to wait for wind in their sails.We have then the masters of the water-ocean world of great wealth of incredible wealth, saying "you scientists" up to this time energy had just been some kind of a God. Some countries had several kinds of energetic Gods, some of speed (and Mercury, or whatever it may be), but they were just Gods. And suddenly you have that energy coming thru a pipe with a valve, and you turn it on to do extraordinary work; and what other kind of capabilities do you scientists have?This was the first time science really came into very important patronage by great wealth. This really brought about the Royal Society and other equally high standing scientific organizations in the various competing countries in Europe to see who was going to control and get water trade... and giving this money to the scientists, really was a good amount of money, developed then, identified energy uniquely with the heat with the fire. Therefore the development of what is called thermodynamics. And with the thermodynamic scientific researching, came the great Second Law of Thermodynamics discovering that all local systems always continue to lose energy... this was then the phenomena entropy, and the energy given off may be orderly, and be giving off in an orderly way in respect to that particular system, but the rate at which it was given off by another system is another periodicity and so the two coming together do not necessarily synchronize, so they seem to be producing randomness and disorder.