RE01 Rice Brian T. EM2
Thu, 29 Apr 1999 23:51:32 -0700
> > you closed-minded fool! you can't even figure out the limitations of
> > models of computation! right now, hardware is being built that can
> > instantaneous computations. eventually, more than an infinite number of
> > computations will be possible at a continuous rate! just because no one
> Oh, you must be talking about Quantum Computers! Yeah it's all very
> interesting, I might even go into that field if I ever go to a university.
> But it ain't magic! You gotta read the fine print in those research
> separate the wheat from the chaff... I read some of them myself, and
> always a catch, like "it can perform an instantaneous number of
> but they're all meaningless except for one".
i know all that about quantum computing. what about current analog systems?
real-time fourier-transform calculators? linear problem-solving networks of
transistors? anything that operates _nonlinearly_ can provide information
that linear (Turing equivalent) calculations couldn't do in a lifetime.
> These other computational systems need a lot of development before they
> within the scope of Tunes. Let's not get carried away here :)
you are quite incorrect, in fact.
what about systems designed to advance visual pattern-recognition? most of
the advanced types are based on lots of analog computing. is our system
going to exclude robots and security systems from its class of computing
systems? furthermore, you're forgetting the most important device that
Tunes must be implemented upon: the human mind. the ability for a person to
interact with tunes is equivalent to implementation, including the
definitions of concepts used to express tunes ideas. a person can perceive
patterns in ways that algorithmic methods (even randomly chaotic ones) can
only hope to acheive. furthermore, most information given to computers is
only human-reachable in meaning, so again, why shouldn't Tunes encompass
this, if we are to bind documentation to code?
> Yeah, even Hofstadter is slightly more understandable than your arrow
> I'm sorry to say. If you've got something there, only a really bright
> person with an extensive CS background would recognize it, the way you've
> written it. Likewise, it would take such a person to recognize your paper
> as mumbo-jumbo, if that's what it is. If you want *my* support, get out
> this mindset "If you can't understand my great scientific work, you must
> a moron" and write something I can read without losing consciousness!
> tell me the gist of it, and let me use my imagination. You've got to
> convince me that reading your paper isn't a complete waste of time.
contemplating hofstadter for a YEAR isn't worth as much as reading Church's
or Godel's work for a DAY.
if i could tell you the gist of it, then it wouldn't be worth reading, now
would it? if it were easy to express the gist of an idea, then it must be
because many people have already digested the notions of the subject and
discussed it in plain sense language. it's OUR job to do that for Tunes
concepts, which the arrow system definitely mirrors. i suppose that you
must take my word on that.
> > > Hope this clears things up.
> > >
> > it certainly does. you're exactly the same as the "establishment" that
> > perceive; you're merely part of the establishment of people who are not
> > to new ideas in science and math. you're a person who learns like a
> > spoon-fed baby.
> Look, this is a mailing list, and this petty arguing is a waste my time,
> your time, everyone's time. Just drop it. You're a mathematician, I'm
> Let's just try to find a peaceful coexistance, ok???
NO, it's not a waste of time, if the argument wakes you up intellectually.
that's like saying that nietzsche wasted his time writing passionate works,
because they were misunderstood as a result. people misinterpreted _his_
passion in many ways, just as you misinterpret mine in many ways.
nietzsche's works are by far not a waste of anyone's time to contemplate,
unless they are people without hope. do you have hope for Tunes? i hope