Arrows n=m+1 example

RE01 Rice Brian T. EM2
Tue, 27 Apr 1999 03:09:48 -0800

> > So it seems more intuitive to define an arrow as having two slots that
> > can reference either an arrow or an 'atom (or object)'. I guess this
> must be
> > wrong for you, since it would means to lose the homo-iconic property.
> > But I don't see by myself yet why it would be so bad.
> In a reflective system, what are "atoms" varies depending on the context.
> We can't have one set of atoms for the entire system, because we want to
> talk about what those atoms are defined by, which would necessitate
> something at the "sub-atomic" level.  Of course, once you have a system
> bootstrapped, you can use the atoms themselves in their own definitions,
> but you don't always want to do that.
once again, READ THE DRAFT!  ontological relativism is the concept of going
against the "levels of abstraction" metaphor and the HIERARCHY that it
implies!  i thought that tunes was against hierarchies because of the ideas
of cybernetics and their universality.  obviously, i was terribly wrong.

> A more mundane answer is that you can use arrows that point back to
> themselves (or any other designated shape of arrow you wish) as atoms.
i'm not going to re-iterate.