the logic of the infinite

[Alexis Read]

>>>Jeremy wrote:

1. From my initial and partial understanding of Arrow information theory,
Lisp, and such, the basic
idea is to abstract the underlying structure and function of real-world
entities and processes as
much as possible. Maybe this isn't a good way to put it. Anyone care to
correct me or clarify this
point?

>
Sounds about right to me. It is very neccessary though, to be able to view
the different levels of abstraction depending on the user's needs.

In order for this to be effective, our basic abstraction, our base class,
our informational atom
(kernel?), needs to be extremely flexible and able to model the form and
behaviour of any entity
whatsoever. We need a framework that can express the nature of reality,
which is of one infinite
being assuming an infinite diversity of forms and behaviours. The basic
abstraction would then need
to be a model of infinity.  ?what do you think?

An atom is different to a kernel. Kernel usually refers to the minimal
code needed to run a workable operating system on that machine.
There are many different ideas what should be in a kernel, but to be
honest its not important compared to the methods of abstraction.

The ultimate level of abstraction would HAVE to be able to model infinite
structures, this is what arrows and rewrite logic seem to be able to do. I
say seem as there are math proofs for some types of structure, obviously
not all of them though.

Alexis.