Arrow System -- Rationale?

[RE01 Rice Brian T. EM2]

> Actually, what I would like to see is a detailed, laymen's-level
> description of why the Arrow language is better than any other
> language.  What problems does it solve that other languages don't?  What
> does it make easy that other languages make hard?  What does it do when
> you hook it up to a toaster?  :)
> 
here are some teasers: (yes, i expect criticism on these. i have so little
time to work on this stuff)

the arrow system is a world of possible semantical systems.
the arrow system has no one standard interpretation.

this is tough... i'll find some sort of example for you all...

> If I were in the computer store and I saw "Arrow System v6.0" on the
> shelf (assuming it was complete), what reason would I have for buying
> it?
> 
mostly Tunes.  the point of Arrow is a means for Tunes, or any system
satisfying Tunes' specs.

> > this basically amounts to being able to make a
> > new object in the Arrow system by assembling ANY group of other
> > arrows in the world of arrows.  in other words, there is NO
> > INFORMATION HIDING to an arrow (as opposed to a user or a module)
> > WITHIN the arrow system.  all information in the Arrow system is
> > available to an arrow.
> Does this mean, "The Arrow system can be changed by some outside force
> such that any arrow can reference any group of arrows within the Arrow
> system?"
> 
not exactly. the arrow model that i've been looking at involves interpreting
all 'outside' information as information within the world of arrows.  in
other words, there is no user, just a simulation of one (which in reality is
a real person).  this goes along with the infinitary quandary about how to
simulate infinitary systems.  in other words, the arrow system reflects on
everything, not just 'itself'.  another way to express it is that it DOES
reflect on itself, in the sense that is an interface between REAL things in
the real world.

> If not, I don't understand how an arrow can 'DO' anything.  An arrow
> system appears (to me) to have no defined means of changing itself; the
> changes have to come from without.  (That's a good thing, as I see it,
> but it's counterintuitive if you're used to thinking of traditional
> imperative languages.)
> 
well, if i postulate a group of arrows which is every arrow in the system
(the current set of postulated arrows), and use it in a mapping like {the
set of all arrows} -> {the set of all arrows} U some new arrow satisfying
X,Y, and Z requirements in terms of the original systems, then i have
information updates and such.  yes, the thoery needs work.  and if anyone
uses the word 'paradox', i'll have to slap them with a wet fish!! :)

> >  we achieve 'reflection' by including enough information about the
> > system so that it encompasses it's own existence.
> But how is information represented in the system?  Define an Arrow
> system which represents the binary string "00".  For example, it could
> be represented 
> 
finite-state machines and such.  really, the natural numbers and all that
will be objects in the arrow system as well.