Even death and destruction in nature are structure-preserving because they preserve and extend the whole, unlike human image-driven processes.

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

• Structure-preserving transformations govern the emergence of all structure in nature, not just in buildings and art.hypothesis0.847
  Alexander's conjecture extending the unfolding framework from architecture to natural phenomena generally.
• How can a structure-preserving process both preserve and enhance the whole? How can these two apparently different ideas be reconciled?question0.837
  Central theoretical puzzle that latent centers resolve.
• Nature manages to create structures that are members of C_living by way of structure-preserving transformations.claim0.825
• A structure-preserving transformation both preserves existing structure and enhances the whole by developing latent centers.claim0.824
  Resolution of the apparent conflict between preserving and enhancing.
• What is more structure-preserving and what is less so is, in principle, an objective matter.claim0.820
  Assertion that the distinction between structure-preserving and structure-destroying is objective, not merely subjective opinion.
• Living structure can only be created by structure-preserving transformations.claim0.820
  A strong normative claim from Book 2 recapitulated in the appendix as a verifiable and surprising conclusion.
• Nature always produces living structure because it follows a process of unfolding wholeness; human designers can create non-living structure by violating this process.claim0.820
  Core distinction between natural and designed configurations, explaining why properties are ubiquitous in nature but rare in bad design.
• Structure-preserving means preserving wholeness via observer's ability to see the whole, not arbitrary mathematical transformationclaim0.819