Skip to content
The table

A concentration essay in 5 parts · March 2021 · annotated 2026

Computation Becomes Geometry

The March 2021 statement of intent where it started: computers do two jobs, calculating and putting things in order, and every interface is an apology for the gap between the machine's time and ours. Written to justify a self-designed degree at NYU Gallatin; Pulling Rabbits Out of Hats is named here first.

By
Jade Flowers
Reading
~15 min
Figures
5, all live
Notes from 2026
being written

How to read thisThe 2021 text stands as written. The 2026 layer, notes and scores, sits beside it and turns off with the switch at the top. Every figure is something to do rather than watch.

The argument in four moves

  1. iCalculation is not ordination.L'ordinateur: the one who puts things in order. Calculation queues tasks against resources and needs an interface to meet us in real time. Ordination is real-time response, and needs none.§ iiv
  2. iiMatter that reorders itself.Ordination's one first-class citizen is recursion, which, as Perlis put it, trades description for time: a five-line rule, a hundred and twenty-seven branches. Its frame is our frame.§ iiii
  3. iiiImmersion becomes recursion.A program is crystallized thought, and thought is an act in space, not time: it unfolds out of what's already there rather than being assembled from nothing. Read through Sloterdijk, Alexander and Bratton.§ iiiiv
  4. ivHold both eyepieces together.From two-point perspective to Simula to naked objects: a theory of computing has to keep the representation and its physical instance in one view.§ vi

A longer line of thought

  1. March 2021 · you are here

    Computation Becomes Geometry

    Calculation vs ordination, and computing as a space-forming effect.

  2. Later in 2021

    Pulling Rabbits Out of Hats

    Skeuomorphism, the controller, the case against discoverability.

  3. 2021 · second edition 2026

    The Periodic Table of the Interactions

    118 interactions, laid out by dimension, time, discoverability, and agency.

The One Who Puts Things In Order

i

i

i

L’ordinateur—the one who puts things in order—was coined by a 1950s public relations executive at IBM, in consultation with his former grammar school teacher1. It was sought as a replacement for the English loanword “computer.” It turns out the literal, less divine calculatrice, was already in use for certain scientific equipment.
  1. 1

    https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinateur#.C3.89tymologie [archived]

ii

One doesn’t calculate or compute, then, when using French hardware or software—one orders, with theologic and anthropomorphic connotations. The term isn’t indicative of the underlying engineering: Franco-files mask the same abstraction as their Anglo brethren, a collection of bytes serialized through the wringer of a Von Neumann architecture.

iii

But computing-as-calculation versus computing-as-ordination is a contrast we will borrow from this bit of historical errata, as it's well-suited to what we’re trying to get at in this piece.

iv

HCI impresario Bret Victor has identified a dialectic in modern computing1 that harkens to our calculate-order distinction. He pits ‘asymptotic complexity theory’—calculating—against ‘control theory’—ordering. ACT/calculation entails allocating resources against a queue of atomic tasks—whether you’re processing the day’s submitted decks of punch cards, or pre-training a machine learning model with 175 billion parameters.2
  1. 1

    “The Two Types of Computing,” Bret Victor: 1. asymptotic complexity theory; 2. control theory (signal processing, cybernetics). ACT designed for batch jobs (deck of punchcards); CT designed for real-time response (aircraft and artillery). ACT has no concept of time, only a measure of how operating count scales with dataset size. CT has an explicit time variable, which is often real time. Today, most of our computing is in a realtime context (via simulated pseudo-physical interfaces) but hardware and software designed around the ACT view of computing.

  2. 2

    I’m referring to Open AI’s GPT-3, of course: https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.14165

v

As Victor notes, ACT/calculation may appear to us in the guise of real-time interactivity, but really all there is some undergirding data-to-cycle relationship. Thus, calculation must be mediated via an interface, which might be defined as any interpolation that seeks to remedy the impedance mismatch between real-time and computational cycles. I’ve spent the majority of my time at Gallatin trying to decide whether human-computation interaction entails interfaces in this sense.
Fig. — the interface is the gap. Add delay and watch one grow to fill itBuilt from Miller, 1968 · Card, Robertson and Mackinlay, 1991 · Nielsen, “Response Times”, 1993

vi

My final verdict is ‘no,’ and the reason is the name of my concentration: ‘computation becomes geometry.’

Matter That Reorders Itself, Order That Re-Matters Itself

ii

i

i

So what about ordination?

ii

CT/Ordination, is designed for, is, real-time response. It’s an integrated system of information handling1 where the theory is the program2. Whereas calculation implies that output is a function of input, ordination implies no such ontology. Its one and only first-class citizen is recursion—that which may trade form or description for time3. Its frame is our frame; thus, no interface is required.
  1. 1

    Marshall McLuhan, from Understanding Media: “Instead of being concerned with separate machines, cybernation looks at the production problem as an integrated system of information handling.”

  2. 2

    A phrase of Herbert Simon’s, from his “Elements of a Theory of Human Problem-Solving” (http://digitalcollections.library.cmu.edu/awweb/awarchive?type=file&item=33573 [archived])

  3. 3

    This is referencing a famous “epigram” on computing by computer scientist Alan Perlis: “Recursion is the root of computation since it trades description for time.” (http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/perlis-alan/quotes.html [archived])

iii

As my research progressed, I became convinced that the notion of the geometry of form as a computational substrate remains under-theorized relative to its potential, both in the far-flung future and the here-and-now. The idea that computation is a process set apart ontologically from its inputs and outputs became more and more limiting to me, both as a perspective for thinking about technology qua technology as well as a means of perception of its emergent effects beyond itself.

iv

Matter that reorders itself, or order that re-matters itself. We lack a coherent framework of these dynamic objects—objects that trade description for time.
Fig. — recursion trades description for time, after PerlisBuilt from Perlis, “Epigrams on Programming”, 1982

v

Technology has put forth a few perspectives, among them a manifesto collectively authored by several computer science luminaries,1 and, recently, an open-sourced “spatial API” by the world’s most valuable company.2 Simulation and Simulacrum3 is the most obvious candidate from philosophy and critical theory’s cannon, but in the case of computation-as-ordination quibbling over the semantics of reality and procession make for the opposite of clarity.4
  1. 1

    Amorphous Computing, Abelson et. al. (http://worrydream.com/refs/Abelson%20-%20Amorphous%20Computing.pdf [archived])

  2. 2

    Apple’s Indoor Mapping Data Format (https://register.apple.com/resources/imdf/ [archived])

  3. 3

    Jean Baudrillard’s book for those who need a citation.

  4. 4

    However, I do believe Baudrillard’s framework to be especially relevant to analyzing our current computation-as-calculation state of affairs, as it is well-suited as a framework for understanding why interfaces are necessary within that paradigm.

vi

Neither grounding resonates with me; both fall short what I believe the potential of such a framework to be. So became my concentration-length treatment of ‘computation becomes geometry.’

My Own Transformation

iii

i

i

The three works most influential to me in my time at Gallatin, which I’ve anchored my concentration around, were each vital stepping-stones in my path to reorient my thinking about technology towards ‘computation becomes geometry.’

ii

a) Spheres1In his Spheres trilogy, philosopher Peter Sloterdijk’s key insight is that thought and form-transformation are one in the same: a “boundlessly manifold space-forming effect” that “creates its own interior.”
In the course of the narrative, it should become clear why classical philosophy took form as macrospherology, as contemplation of the greatest orb and most encompassing immune structure. Wherever philosophical thought after Plato was at the necessary level, the two epitomes of totality, the world and God, were envisaged as an all-enclosing spheric volume in which countless subordinate world shells, value spheres and energy circles are concentrically embedded...Existence is characterized by immersion in a final element...2...If "life" has a boundlessly manifold space-forming effect, this is not only because every monad has its own individual environment, but more significantly because they are all intertwined with other lives and consist of countless units...What is decisive here, however, is that it always produces the space in which it is and which is in it in the first place...3...wherever human life is found, inhabited orbs appear which, in a sense, are rounder than anything that can be drawn with compasses.4
  1. 1

    Spheres Vols. I-III, Peter Sloterdijk

  2. 2

    Ibid. Vol 3, p.17

  3. 3

    Ibid. Vol 3, p.23

  4. 4

    Ibid, Vol I, p.11

iii

Sloterdijk’s work is a reframing of philosophy from a temporal preoccupation to a spatial one. As the dust jacket to volume three triumphantly touts, Sloterdijk’s trilogy can be understood as a rejoinder to Heiddiger’s Being and Time that reframes it into Being and Space.

iv

“Immersion becomes recursion” was the phrase that continually bubbled up in my thoughts as I was reading this book, and in fact was the genesis of the phrase “computation becomes geometry.” That thought (and what is a computer program if not crystallized thought?) is foundational an act in space rather than time, that it occurs as unfolding ex materiā rather than assembly ex nihilo, was nothing short of a revelation in my thinking about technology.

v

Whereas computation-as-calculation is propped up via the metaphysical tentpoles of input, transformation, and output, and the technical tentpoles of computing environments (operating systems, virtual machines, continuations and closures, language ecosystems and dependencies, etc.), computing-as-ordination pops the bubble of computation as a separate realm, abstracted to a privileged level of onology different than our own.

vi

Understanding technology in general and computing in particular not as a process executed within time but as a manifold space-forming effect was the first major step of “ontological remodeling” I took in my intellectual journey, and this philosophical grounding prepared me to venture into more concrete territory with the architectural and ecological bent of my next two foundational sources.

vii

b) The Nature of Order1Architect Christopher Alexander’s four-volume The Nature of Order introduced the notion of structure-preserving transformations as enabling the emergence and development of new structures in nature.
I focus on the idea that a living process always has enormous respect for the state (and morphology and form) of what exists, and always finds a next step forward which preserves the structure of what exists, and develops and extends its latent structure as it creates change...2The emergence of new structure in nature, is brought about, always, by a sequence of transformations which act on the whole, and in which each step emerges as a discernible and continuous result from the immediately preceding whole.[Each of Alexander's Fifteen Fundamental Properties] will, in general, tend to occur again and again, throughout nature, within three-dimensional systems. This question involves a level of morphological thinking which has no familiar language in contemporary mathematics.3The practical crux of unfolding, the essence of every living process is that it is above all a geometric process. That is surprising, and not widely understood. The unfolding is geometrical in its essence. Although there are many side features to living proces, it is fundamentally the unfolding of coherent geometric form.4
  1. 1

    The Nature of Order Vols. I-IV, Christopher Alexander

  2. 2

    Vol. I, p.128

  3. 3

    Vol II, p, 18

  4. 4

    Ibid. p.178

viii

I should note two secondary sources of commentary on Alexander that have been instrumental—the first being complexity theorist Joe Norman’s Generating Wholes:
We are very used to thinking of wholes as composed by parts. That is, a whole is generated by gathering the necessary parts (which, crucially, already exist) and putting them together in some way such that a thing is made from the parts. In this view, wholes are “built up” from parts.But the modern mind misses that in the organic and living unfolding of the world, wholes are generated by and out of other wholes, and the parts we observe are very often descended from the elaboration and internal differentiation of a whole whose existence precedes them.
Fig. — wholes from parts, wholes from wholes, after Alexander and Norman

ix

As second source of commentary on Alexander’s opus is programmer Dorian Taylor’s Towards A Theory Of Design As Computation:
A known initial state plus a known morphism equals a predictable result. This equates to the deliberate composition and manipulation of formal systems. This process is also known as computation. Specific types of morphisms may also be employed to translate a representational state from one physical medium to another. ... any representational medium is inherently a computational medium. The machines we recognize today as computers constitute an efficient, yet extremely narrow interpretation of this idea.Alexander achieves [a broader application of this concept], as he uses the current representational—that is to say, geometric—state of the system, on the ground, to compute the next step in the construction process, itself a recursive application of a carefully-selected set of fundamental morphisms.

x

Taken together, Alexander and his commentators form a nuanced view of the potential of geometry as a self-computing substrate. Alexander begins with an extended observation of common geometrical properties nature typifies, which he semi-formalizes as his Fifteen Fundamental Properties. Alexander proceeds to show how “structure-preserving transformations” frequently coalesce into these favored geometrical states.

xi

Integrating Alexander’s work into my own intellectual position, I came to see that computation is not a lifeless, mechanistic series of ontologically privileged functions transforming inputs into outputs—it is the gestalt of the interplay between representational and structural aspects of a system—computation becoming geometry that once again becomes computation—that generates new configurations of said aspects.

xii

Any perspective that favors the former is myopic; only by expanding our view to encompass the entire sequence of elaboration can we begin to appreciate the latter perspective. Alexander’s work furthered the “ontological remodeling” initially set in motion by Sloterdijk’s spatial philosophy, and its architectural grounding prepared me to absorb the disparate threads Benjamin Bratton ties together into a coherent worldview of the impact of global-scale computation in The Stack.

xiii

c) The Stack1Finally, Benjamin Bratton’s The Stack demonstrated that the emergent macro effects of ACT/calculation are already geometry, only as emergences at levels so macro and entangled as to be not easily encompassable within its perfectly round sphere.
The Stack makes space by occupying it; it does so by surveying abstraction, absorbing it, and virtualizing it, which is how it is even possible to consider whether or not it expresses a nomos at all...2...This accidental megastructure, this machine that is also a "state," is not the result of some master plan, revolutionary event, or constitutional order. It is the accumulative residue of contradictions and oppositions that arose to address other more local problems of computing systems design...3...The Stack is at once a machine that becomes a state, and a political geography that derives and is derived from the structure of that machine. The Stack includes all the various planetary computational technologies we now build with fanfare, but its significance is its reflection of the totality that emerges unintentionally...4...The Stack is an engine for thinking and building. The architectural metaphor may suggest an exclusive design for one given site, but it should direct us instead toward a geometry in which different things occupy the same site at the same time and cohere into a stable system because of this co-overlapping. The Stack is built of real things, but how we conceptualize its totality depends on powers of aesthetic abstraction.5
  1. 1

    The Stack, Benjamin Bratton

  2. 2

    Ibid. p.33

  3. 3

    Ibid. p.8

  4. 4

    Ibid. p.65

  5. 5

    Ibid. p.64

xiv

“The Stack” is the conceptual handle Bratton introduces for help in grasping the wholistic impact of global-scale computing. Humans have built up layers of technology into an “accidental megastructure” consisting of six intertwined layers: Earth, Cloud, City, Platform, Interface, and User.1
  1. 1

    Ibid. p.66

xv

Throughout the book, Bratton continually underscores the recursive, self-generative, self-transformative emergence that is The Stack, and his highlight of this aspect illuminated possibilities my own thesis of “computation becomes geometry” could extend towards.

xvi

Bratton shows how the establishment of common technological standards like TCP/IP isn’t an act of limitation, but one of generation;1 how demands for legibility from the state forcibly shapes its constituent “users,” while simultaneously “sovereign” platforms seeking to serve those same “users” reformulate the very foundations of what statehood and sovereignty mean;2 and how the abstract metaphor of “the cloud” masks geographical and geological instantiations.3
  1. 1

    Ibid. p.61-62

  2. 2

    Ibid. p.85

  3. 3

    Ibid. p.87

xvii

With these foundations solidified, my subsequent research has sought to build up to the representational, computational, and physical aspirations my now totally “ontologically remodeled” perspective of technology entails.

xviii

Via historical analysis and technical experimentation, I’ve sought to establish a context for understanding that bridges the multiple levels of abstraction of “computation becomes geometry,” and sets the stage for the emergent evolutions I hope to drive through my remaining time at Gallatin working on my senior thesis, my continuing professional design work, and my ongoing independent research. In the last section, I outline my current progress in establishing this context.

A Context for Research

iv

i

i

There’s media theory, and there’s whatever category two-point perspective falls into.
Fig. — a few marginal rules, 1435 and 1600. Drag the eye; turn a boxBuilt from Alberti, De pictura, 1435 · Guidobaldo del Monte, Perspectivae libri sex, 1600 · read through Kirsti Andersen, 2013

ii

I started my context-establishing with two-point perspective because it’s a media theory crystallized into a practice, much like I wish “computation becomes geometry” to be. Humans created art for thousands of years before the advent of two-point perspective, of course, but that a few marginal additions to the rules of how geometry is depicted could cause a step-change in representational fidelity.

iii

My framework for “computation becomes geometry” might identify the occurrence of a similar shift as a milestone of success. In some sense, a clear parallel can be drawn rather easily, since today most computing happens “flatly” behind pixels, even in cases of pseudo-3D like virtual and augmented reality. In Unflattening,1 a contemporary treatise on the representational depth and potency of 2D illustrations, Nick Sousanis notes that
Traditionally, words have been privileged as the proper mode of explanation, as the tool of thought. Images [read: geometry] have, on the other hand, long been sequestered to the realm of spectacle and aesthetics, sidelined in serious discussions as mere illustration to support the text—never as equal partners.The source of this historical bias can be traced to Plato, who professed a deep distrust of perception, citing its illusory nature...For Plato, human life was a pilgrimage from the world of appearance [geometry] in the cave to the reality of pure forms—of truth....Descartes took this distrust of the senses a step further, as he considered that all he pierced might be a deception...By reducing the body to parts, he felt he would arrive at the mind, which he saw as being “entirely indivisible.”2
  1. 1

    Unflattening, Nick Sousanis

  2. 2

    Ibid. p.54-55

iv

This, of course, is exactly the logic Peter Sloterdijk would find fault with—that the indivisible both exists and is somehow fundamental, when exactly the opposite is the case: the “divisibility” Descartes attempts to “slice through” in hopes of finding something immovable is exactly all that’s there, engaged in the dynamic of creating its own interior, ever-recursing towards new emergences. Recursion’s perceived equivalence with redundancy is something “computation becomes geometry” seeks to refute.

v

It is interesting to compare the advent of two-point perspective with that of the Cartesian coordinate system. centuries later. In some sense, it is exactly what a theory like “computation becomes geometry” would benefit from: a formalized geometric mapping of pure thought. But in The Nature of Order, one of Alexander’s auxiliary points is (he’s about Descartes’s overall program of depicting a mechanized world, but it applies just as to his individual innovations):
The factual character of modern science – what we call its objective nature – arises chiefly from the fact that its results can be shared......[Descartes's] mechanistic idea tells us very little about the deep order we feel intuitively to be in the world. Yet it is just this deep order which is our main concern...In principle, rational discussion about building should be impossible.1
  1. 1

    The Nature of Order Vol II, Christopher Alexander, p. 16-17

vi

Deep order, it seems, does not entail deep formalization. Alexander uses example after example to demonstrate that the rules of order are extremely difficult to enumerate. While each example that possesses an “intuitive” sense of order, and its full geometric state is entirely visible to us and amenable to formal measurements, we cannot derive the computation from whence it came (or which it is becoming).

vii

It’s tempting to dismiss Alexander’s claims to a sort of para-formal legitimacy when he can’t put abstracted rules to his observed concrete consistencies, but when considering the faith we put in formal systems, as one of Paul Feyerabend’s arguments in Against Method proceeds:
...Galileo also changes sensations that seem to endanger Copernicus. He admits that there are such sensations, he praises Copernicus for having disregarded them, he claims to have removed them with the help of the telescope. However, he offerers no theoretical reasons why the telescope should be expected to give a true picture of the sky.1
  1. 1

    Against Method, Paul Feyerabend, p.74

viii

Nowhere is this point better illustrated than in the case of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, which demonstrates that all of our formally-enumerated systems, at present, are self-referential and thus self-generative. Stepan Parunashvili writes an excellent intuitive tutorial on the theorem using a variant of the Lisp programming language to show how Gödel used a self-interpreting language to demonstrate that pure mathematics itself was self-referential:
In a way, Gödel got around [Russell and Whitehead] by building the first “meta-circular evaluator” — a language that interpreted itself.1
  1. 1

    “What Godel Discovered”, (https://stopa.io/post/269 [archived])

ix

Lisp is fun, but moving beyond purposefully self-descriptive programming languages to purposefully world-describing programming languages, we find ourselves looking at Simula. Just as with two-point perspective, Simula proposed a novel way to embed physical reality within a representational medium via geometric instantiation:
Since simulation is the method of analysis most commonly to be used for the systems in which we are interested, SIMULA is a dynamic language: It is designed to describe sequences of actions, not permanent relationships.1
  1. 1

    “The Development of the SIMULA Languages,” p.248 (http://cs-exhibitions.uni-klu.ac.at/fileadmin/template/documents/text/The_development_of_the_simula_languages.pdf [archived])

x

Simula, of course, formed the basis for Smalltalk. The interfacial inventions of Smalltalk found their way into mainstream computing via Apple’s Macintosh, which solidified many of the user experience paradigms like direct manipulation, modelessness, and WYSIWYG. As Jakob Nielsen notes, though, these paradigms were invented in part to satisfy a number of constraints that have long ceased to plague us.

xi

Nielsen pushes for exploring “anti-Mac” user interface paradigms like shared control over direct manipulation, and richer cues over modelessness. These seem like radical departures, but only because the paradigms they seek to replace have remained in place for decades, and their bare adequacy has encouraged little experimentation.

xii

One avenue I’m currently pursuing is based on ideas Jacob Pawson outlines in his thesis “Naked Objects.”1 Pawson, noting the importance of object permanence in crafting user interfaces that take advantage of humans’ well-honed spatial facilities, seeks to parlay this lucky proclivity of ours into a theory of “behaviorally-complete” representational objects2 not entirely unlike the ethos of Simula, but with an explicit focus on how such an approach applies to end-user interactions.3
  1. 1

    Naked Objects, Jacob Pawson

  2. 2

    Ibid. p.9

  3. 3

    In particular, he proposes novel ways of overcoming the limitations inherent in the paradigm of direct manipulation, and seeks to develop methods of performing actions that lack clear physio-spatial referents without resorting to foisting excessive abstraction on the user. Some of my research I hope to complete in my senior project extends this line of research into a paradigm I’m labeling “Pulling Rabbits Out of Hats,” and some early tests have already proven such a perspective’s promise.

Closing

v

i

i

That contemplating the new forms of geopolitical sovereignty computing allows for and prototyping a Javascript application differ so wildly in scope is not lost on me. The framework I’m forming together as “computation becomes geometry” requires superimposing the multiple levels of abstraction that technology and its impact operate on. As Bruno Latour notes, proper understanding of such matters requires requires a delicate balancing act that involves both the representational medium itself and its physio-spatial instantiations:
If we remain at the level of the visual aspects only, we fall back into a series of weak clichés or are led into all sorts of fascinating problems of scholarship far away from our problem; but, on the other hand, if we concentrate on the agonistic situation alone, the principle of any victory, any solidity in science and technology escapes us forever. We have to hold the two eye pieces together so that we turn it into a real binocular.1
  1. 1

    Visualization and Cognition: Drawing Things Together, Bruno Latour, p.5

Fig. — Latour's binocular, on his own example: an Ainu elder draws Sakhalin in the sand for La Pérouse, 1787Built from Latour, “Drawing Things Together”, 1986, pp. 5–6 · Morris-Suzuki, who names the villagers Ainu where Latour says Chinese · coasts simplified from modern charts

ii

It is the unfolding that takes places within this interplay that I hope to continue pursuing as “computation becomes geometry.”

List of works

adds a historical perspective adds a cultural, political or geographical context

Concentration

  • Spheres Vols. I–III · Peter Sloterdijk
  • The Nature of Order Vols. I–IV · Christopher Alexander
  • The Stack · Benjamin Brattonadds a cultural, political or geographical context
  • Augmenting Human Intellect · Douglas Engelbart

Humanities

  • Understanding Media · Marshall McLuhan
  • Against Method · Paul Feyerabendadds a historical perspective
  • Unflattening · Nick Sousanis
  • Technical Ekphrasis in Greek and Roman Science and Literature · Courtney Robyadds a historical perspective

Social & Natural Sciences

  • Seeing Like A State · James Scott
  • Data and Reality · William Kent
  • 99 Variations on a Proof · Phillip Ording

Pre-Modern & Early Modern

  • Allegory of the Cave · Platoadds a historical perspective
  • On The Heavens · Aristotleadds a historical perspective
  • Celestial Spheres illustration from Livre Du Ciel Et Du Monde · Nicole Oresme
  • Chinese Bronze Object, Shang Dynasty, 1500 B.C.adds a cultural, political or geographical context
  • De pictura · Leon Battista Albertiadds a historical perspective
  • La Géométrie · René Descartesadds a historical perspective
  • Monadology · Gottfried Leibniz

Papers

  • Naked Objects · Richard Pawson
  • The Anti-Mac Interface · Don Gentner and Jakob Nielsen
  • Cognitive Dimensions for Cognitive Technology · A.F. Blackwell et al.adds a cultural, political or geographical context
  • Visualization and Cognition: Drawing Things Together · Bruno Latour
  • Knowledge In Pieces · Andrea diSessa
  • Notes for a Modelling Theory of Science & Cognition · David Hestenes

Software

  • Simula-67 · Ole-Johan Dahl and Kristen Nygaard
  • Smalltalk-80 · Alan Kay, Dan Ingalls, Adele Goldberg
  • Project Cybersyn · Stafford Beer et al.adds a cultural, political or geographical context
What came next: Pulling Rabbits Out of Hats →Back to the table →