"...Why is symmetry so satisfying?"

> http://www.slate.com/id/2191776/?from=rss
>

> c649-4b19-bd12-757318f3aeb4@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>> http://www.slate.com/id/2191776/?from=rss
> Looks like an interesting book. For my part, it's interesting not only
> that symmetry is pleasing, but *certain forms* of assymetry as well-
> asymmetrical elements have to have a "balance".
> IMO, the taproot, so to speak, of the phenomenon of the 'pleasingness'
> quality is survivability. In nature, both smmetry, and *balanced*
> assymetry, impact the survivability not only of biological organisms, but
> also of structures, although it's probably easier to consider biological
> organisms, as there are so many different examples.
> For quadrupeds and bipeds, symmetry is important firstly because of its
> impact upon locomotion, vision, and manipulation of the environment.
> Picture an herbivore grazing, and the picture it being chased by a
> predator. For both of them, speed is enhanced by the coordinated
> movements of their four legs. Although a three-legged creature would be
> stable (and possibly be able to sleep standing up - which bipeds, as far
> as I know, cannot do), it's impossible for me, at elat,t o imagine how a
> three-legged creature could coordinate its limbs so as to reach the
> speeds of, for example, a gazelle, or a pursuing cheetah, or a horse.
> Balance makes for efficiency. For humans, walking is a surprisingly
> efficient means of locomotion, because of the way the human body is
> (usually) balanced. A thrid arm might sometimes be "handy" (sorry for
> the bad pun ;) ), but it'd have a negative effect upon balance and
> therefore upon efficiency of locomotion, which doesnt' make much of a
> difference in "couch potato" cultures, but does have an impact upon more
> rigorous lifestyles, esp. the ancient hunting-gathering, and even manual
> farming, lifestyles of our ancestors. ((Remember that the combine, for
> example, only was invented and came into wide use in the late 1940's or
> early 1950's.)) Inefficient locomotion generally makes for slower
> locomotion, but possibly more importantly, more calorie-intensive
> locomotion, since it takes more effort - and again, for the vast majority
> of human history (and, really, even for a gret amhy, if not most, of
> today's world population), starvation is a constant threat, so anything
> that made an individual require more calories tended to be dropped from
> the gene pool, due to the lowered survivability of the individual.
> A lack of symmetry affects not only efficiency of locomotion, but also
> perception. Given that perception is vital for both finding food and
> avoiding predators, again, in a survivalist/"primitive" mode of
> existence, anything that negatively impacted it would be unlikely to be
> passed on to the next generation.
> As for "balanced assymetry", it's obvious that the most symmetrical shape
> would be a sphere (right angles being very uncommon in nature, aside from
> some rock/crystal faces and formations), and equally obvious is the fact
> that the closest any biological entity is to a sphere occurs in
> microorganisms and jellyfish. Higher animals have separated perceptual
> organs from digestive organs, and both from locomotive organs - IOW, a
> head, a gut, and legs/fins/wings. However, all of these things also need
> to operate in the environment of the Earth: gravity, hydrodynamics
> (whether it be of air or water), temperature, and so on. If the head is
> too large, the animal wouldn't be able to move forwards, and IIRC the
> only animal whose main/only direction of locomotion is backwards are
> squid. Most animals on Earth (and in most of Earth's history) are
> laterally symmetrical, i.e. symmetrical along the long axis, but
> assymetrical front-to-back. But that assymetry must be in balance, or
> else the animal wouldn't be able to move efficiently. Its body, IOW, has
> to balance all the forces that the animal encounters during th ecourse of
> its life.
> So, while mathematicians talk about 1.618 and 1.414 and other "magic"
> ratios, it might make more sense to look at animals, and where their
> "pivit points" are located and which rations permit, or don't permit,
> them to balance.
> Just my own random thoughts ;)
> - K.

> but the case of a housepet is completely irrelevant to the
> possible origins of why symmetry, and balanced assymetyry,
> might be pleasing.

>>> Four legs workable. Three legs not. Therefore symmetry [sic] is good.
>> Three legs not only is workable but it is workable for something initially

>> [implication that it is EMINENTLY workable]
> Three legs being workable has nothing to do with symmetry being good.