coherent states

David Manifold
Tue, 23 Jun 1998 15:41:09 -0700 (PDT)

On Tue, 23 Jun 1998, William Tanksley wrote:

> I agree that there are other dangers aside from the danger of discussing too
> long.  I don't agree that this means that we should discuss forever.  My two
> warnings were intended to cover both extremes.

Now I'm confused.  What extremes are we talking about?
We could talk about Tunes forever, and forget to make it, I understand
that.  Or we could makes Tunes, and screw up, and end up with some program
that we don't like.  Is that close?

> > As for the first danger, whatever in the world is reality?  I thought the
> > whole point of programming was to create our own reality.  Just something
> > to think about.
> I don't know what reality is.  We have to spend enough time talking to find
> that out!  However, if there were no objective reality that we had to match,
> then we should not EVER consider talking about what our program will do --- we
> should just program it.
> But then, isn't that why we're making Tunes?  Because in one way or another,
> the existing system don't match up to reality?

No, no, no, existing systems are reality, which does not match up to our
ideal of what we want reality to be.  Programming (and life) is making
dreams reality.

[David Manifold] <>