A revolutionary OS/Programming Idea

John Newman jmn381@yahoo.com
Thu Oct 9 17:20:03 2003


--0-58749378-1065745172=:95453
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Lynn said,

"In software the basic building block, our universal black box, 
is the IPO (Input/Process/Output). We connect them to make 
systems. We could say that the input represents cause and 
the output effect. But the minute we put two of them 
together we find that the effect of one is the cause of the 
next. If we put the two of them as a closed cycle as a system 
with feedback, cause and effect become indistinguishable."

A loop?

"I tried to do a google search on a different book by E. F. 
Schumacher, author of "Small is Beautiful" in which what we 
can seek to know of reality falls into four categories, only 
one of which includes the scientific method, the predictive 
science of cause and effect. Cause and effect are two sides 
of the same coin. From any cause (the effect of some earlier 
cause) the effect is what occurs next regardless of its 
predictability. Cause and effect, this sequence, represents 
arbitrary "cuts" in an otherwise continuous process. Reality is 
ongoing, never hesitating regardless of the arbitrary "stops" 
we engage with our language, our map of the process. In 
reality no "god of the gaps" occurs as no "gap" exists."

Sounds like Spinoza.  Most scientist agree that there are a finite amount of distinguishable objects in the universe and a finite amount of distinguishable events in its history.  The convolutions of reality imply discreteness.  Whether or not the universe is continuous or discrete is inconsequential if both produce the same, indistinguishable effect--making the distinction would be moot.


"Von Neumanm machines can emulate other von Neumann 
machines. To say otherwise to quote you is "an assertion not 
founded in evidence". We have no evidence that the brain 
is a "universal machine". In fact we have evidence to the 
contrary. It cannot conceive every possible machine, of which 
the "given" ones remain only a subset."

Which machines of comparable complexity, as a property of the machine, cannot be conceived by brains?  IOW, not because it is too complex, but because it is fundementally inconceivable.

"Well, it's always somewhat disturbing when so many exist in 
denial, using the rules of mathematical induction 
inappropriately. Computers are not universal machines, for 
the simple reason they are based entirely on formal logic and 
it implementation in logic circuits, "ands", "ors", "nots", etc.. 
They may be universal within the realm of logic machines, one 
capable of expressing any other. They are not universal with 
respect to non-logic-circuit-based systems, systems not 
subject to logical decomposition."

What system or systemic property is not subject to logical decomposition?  You know, logic and math are really the same.  Godel's Proof emulates set theory inside of arithmetic logic.  All you are saying is that some systems aren't subject to reason and rational thought.  That'll be a tough one to prove.

"Whatever you say something is it is not." Matter does not 
exist except as a word, machine does not exist except as a 
word. Life does not exist except as a word. Intelligence does 
not exist except as a word. These words are "map" terms 
different from the territory. They are our "inventions". 
Unfortunately we can work with them in ways that we cannot 
in reality. They are for our convenience. Reality does very 
well without them."

This sounds like some sort of silopsistic dualism, where reality exists, but it's inaccesable from the semantic self.  One should avoid such loopy constructs when they provide a back door to absolutely any opposing argument, especially when the opponent can use it as a back door against ones own argument.

"We cannot emulate matter in computers. To do so implies 
that it is decomposable, that reality (the name we give to it) 
can somehow be broken up, stopped, separated, and yet 
remain the same. Whenever you do this you deny its very 
essence. If you want to fly in the face of Heisenberg's 
Principle of Uncertainty, be my guest. You will not end up 
with reality."

Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle does not employ or support the notion that matter, space, or time is infinitely dividable.  It just says that observing a sub-atomic object alters its orientation, procluding complete knowledge of its previous orientation.  However, if we had an accurate unified model of the universe, we would only need a subset of the data to reverse engineer , so to speak, its causal chain and surmise the entire history of the system.

You say we want to believe in determinism so we don't have to believe in free-will.  To the contrary, QM has harbored indeterminism for more than, at least, 60 years.  But that derived from philosophical preference, not empirical knowledge.

"Again "mechanisms", "evolution", "sentience", and "black 
boxes" exist only in our maps and not necessarily in the 
territory. In fact they may inhibit our ability to understand it. 
We can engage in fantasies with our words. Reality has no 
use for it."

You seem to assume that one cannot ascertain the correspondence between the map and the territory.  Why?

I said,
"...What of a function like phi/Golden-Ratio? Is its 
inexolerably resultant infinite sequence an intention of 
someone who implements the function? How can it be when 
it is impossible for any programmer to know the entirety of 
the outputting sequence? No one can influence the evolution 
of phi or pi. For all intents and purposes, they evolve on their 
own. ..."

Lynn then said,
"I've hear this illogical argument before from supposedly logical people. The fact that we cannot predict all possible outcomes 
does not mean they are not predictable. As they are 
software based we know they are predictable. We know that 
if we had a infinitely long life we could emulate the same 
progression with the same results."

My point was that adaptable software can evolve in ways that the programmer never intended.  But, as to your response, there are some functions whose output cannot be predicted any faster than just running the function.  No equation or other shortcut can be used in less steps to find the output at a given point.  This is probably the case with evolution.  We just have to build a model, and run it.

To tie this into programming languages--The ideal language base should be simple and be able to emulate any or many current, or as yet to be created, programming languages (perhaps based on NAND logic).  It should be portable through a small and simple interpeter.  The interpreter should be only complex enough to be implementable by the simple language, which the subsequent library would implement.  The library could contain all the languages one wants.

"Evolution doesn't exist in reality. It is our "crutch" that we 
employ in our maps of it. Do not confuse the map with the 
territory. We need to understand that all these words we 
have created may or may not actually represent what occurs 
in reality."

Not the word, but the objective phenomenon that the word evolution represents, exists in reality.  Perhaps you don't think that speciation exists in reality, but evolution is not just a figment of imagination.  I think your conceptualization of semantics is becoming a crutch for you.  It says, "I don't need to listen to you because what you say may not correspond to reality."

"The only distinction I make here lies in the assertion of a 
non-programmable machine, one whose program does not lie 
in an instruction set. It doesn't program itself (as it doesn't 
have to) and you can't program it without interfering with 
what it would do on its own. With an instruction set you may 
emulate but not replicate it. In doing so you will have created 
something else. I am not arguing for or against the usefulness 
of such an approach, only that whatever results will not will 
not be the "same" as what you emulate."

What is it?  An anolog computer?  Are you sure it's not just currently too computationally complex emulate (like the weather)?

"If that's not your concern, then at least have the courtesy to 
remind others as well as yourself that the emulated results 
work "as if" they were the real thing, consciously reminding 
yourself that they are "not" the real thing. The difference 
continues to exist. When you get away from the implications 
of "as if" that's when you confuse the map with the 
territory."

The Indistinguability of Identities.

These aren't really the same:  setA((2 + 2) + (4 + 4)) and setB((1 + 3) + (3 + 5))

Yet, on the next iteration they are the same:  setA(4 + 8) and setB(4 + 8)

>From this point on, the sets are indistinguishable.  So, even when the elements of two systems are different, if their composites are identical then it is useless to think of those composites as different.  Sentience is sentience, evolution is evolution--no matter what mechanism used.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
--0-58749378-1065745172=:95453
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

<DIV>Lynn said,<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<P>"In software the basic building block, our universal black box, <BR>is the IPO (Input/Process/Output). We connect them to make <BR>systems. We could say that the input represents cause and <BR>the output effect. But the minute we put two of them <BR>together we find that the effect of one is the cause of the <BR>next. If we put the two of them as a closed cycle as a system <BR>with feedback, cause and effect become indistinguishable."</P>
<P>A loop?</P>
<P>"I tried to do a google search on a different book by E. F. <BR>Schumacher, author of "Small is Beautiful" in which what we <BR>can seek to know of reality falls into four categories, only <BR>one of which includes the scientific method, the predictive <BR>science of cause and effect. Cause and effect are two sides <BR>of the same coin. From any cause (the effect of some earlier <BR>cause) the effect is what occurs next regardless of its <BR>predictability. Cause and effect, this sequence, represents <BR>arbitrary "cuts" in an otherwise continuous process. Reality is <BR>ongoing, never hesitating regardless of the arbitrary "stops" <BR>we engage with our language, our map of the process. In <BR>reality no "god of the gaps" occurs as no "gap" exists."</P>
<P>Sounds like Spinoza.&nbsp; Most scientist agree that there are a finite amount of distinguishable objects in the universe and a finite amount of distinguishable events in its history.&nbsp; The convolutions of reality imply discreteness.&nbsp; Whether or not&nbsp;the universe is continuous or discrete is inconsequential if both produce the same, indistinguishable&nbsp;effect--making the distinction would be moot.</P>
<P><BR>"Von Neumanm machines can emulate other von Neumann <BR>machines. To say otherwise to quote you is "an assertion not <BR>founded in evidence".<G> We have no evidence that the brain <BR>is a "universal machine". In fact we have evidence to the <BR>contrary. It cannot conceive every possible machine, of which <BR>the "given" ones remain only a subset."</P>
<P>Which machines of comparable complexity, as a property of the machine,&nbsp;cannot be conceived by brains?&nbsp; IOW, not because it is too complex, but because it is fundementally inconceivable.</P>
<P>"Well, it's always somewhat disturbing when so many exist in <BR>denial, using the rules of mathematical induction <BR>inappropriately. Computers are not universal machines, for <BR>the simple reason they are based entirely on formal logic and <BR>it implementation in logic circuits, "ands", "ors", "nots", etc.. <BR>They may be universal within the realm of logic machines, one <BR>capable of expressing any other. They are not universal with <BR>respect to non-logic-circuit-based systems, systems not <BR>subject to logical decomposition."</P>
<P>What system or systemic property is not subject to logical decomposition?&nbsp; You know, logic and math are really the same.&nbsp; Godel's Proof emulates set theory inside of arithmetic logic.&nbsp; All you are saying is that some systems aren't subject to reason and rational thought.&nbsp; That'll be a tough one to prove.</P>
<P>"Whatever you say something is it is not." Matter does not <BR>exist except as a word, machine does not exist except as a <BR>word. Life does not exist except as a word. Intelligence does <BR>not exist except as a word. These words are "map" terms <BR>different from the territory. They are our "inventions". <BR>Unfortunately we can work with them in ways that we cannot <BR>in reality. They are for our convenience. Reality does very <BR>well without them.<G>"</P>
<P>This sounds like some sort of silopsistic dualism, where reality exists, but it's inaccesable from the semantic self.&nbsp;&nbsp;One should avoid such loopy constructs when they provide a back door to absolutely any opposing argument, especially when&nbsp;the opponent can use it as a back door against ones own argument.</P>
<P>"We cannot emulate matter in computers. To do so implies <BR>that it is decomposable, that reality (the name we give to it) <BR>can somehow be broken up, stopped, separated, and yet <BR>remain the same. Whenever you do this you deny its very <BR>essence. If you want to fly in the face of Heisenberg's <BR>Principle of Uncertainty, be my guest. You will not end up <BR>with reality."</P>
<P>Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle&nbsp;does not employ or support&nbsp;the notion that matter, space, or time is infinitely dividable.&nbsp; It just says that observing a sub-atomic object alters its orientation, procluding complete knowledge of its previous orientation.&nbsp; However, if we had an accurate&nbsp;unified model of the universe, we would only need a subset of the data to reverse engineer , so to speak, its causal chain and surmise the entire history of the system.</P>
<P>You say we want to believe in determinism so we don't have to believe in free-will.&nbsp; To the contrary, QM has harbored indeterminism for more than, at least, 60 years.&nbsp; But that derived from philosophical&nbsp;preference, not empirical knowledge.</P>
<P>"Again "mechanisms", "evolution", "sentience", and "black <BR>boxes" exist only in our maps and not necessarily in the <BR>territory. In fact they may inhibit our ability to understand it. <BR>We can engage in fantasies with our words. Reality has no <BR>use for it."</P>
<P>You seem to assume that one cannot&nbsp;ascertain the correspondence between the map and the territory.&nbsp; Why?</P>
<P>I said,<BR>"...What of a function like phi/Golden-Ratio? Is its <BR>inexolerably resultant infinite sequence an intention of <BR>someone who implements the function? How can it be when <BR>it is impossible for any programmer to know the entirety of <BR>the outputting sequence? No one can influence the evolution <BR>of phi or pi. For all intents and purposes, they evolve on their <BR>own. ..."</P>
<P>Lynn then said,<BR>"I've hear this illogical argument before from supposedly logical people. The fact that we cannot predict all possible outcomes <BR>does not mean they are not predictable. As they are <BR>software based we know they are predictable. We know that <BR>if we had a infinitely long life we could emulate the same <BR>progression with the same results."</P>
<P>My point was that adaptable software can evolve in ways that the programmer never intended.&nbsp; But, as to your response, there are some functions whose output cannot be predicted&nbsp;any faster than just&nbsp;running the function.&nbsp; No equation or other shortcut can be used in less steps to find the output at&nbsp;a given point.&nbsp; This is probably the case with evolution.&nbsp; We just have to build a model, and run it.</P>
<P>To tie this into programming languages--The&nbsp;ideal language base should be simple&nbsp;and be able to emulate any or many current, or as yet to be created, programming languages (perhaps based on NAND logic).&nbsp; It should be portable through a small and simple interpeter.&nbsp; The interpreter should be only complex enough to be implementable by the simple language, which the subsequent library would implement.&nbsp; The library could contain all the languages one wants.<BR><BR>"Evolution doesn't exist in reality. It is our "crutch" that we <BR>employ in our maps of it. Do not confuse the map with the <BR>territory. We need to understand that all these words we <BR>have created may or may not actually represent what occurs <BR>in reality."</P>
<P>Not the word, but the objective phenomenon that the word evolution represents, exists in reality.&nbsp; Perhaps you don't think that speciation exists in reality, but evolution is not just a figment of imagination.&nbsp; I think your conceptualization of semantics is becoming a crutch for you.&nbsp; It says, "I don't need to listen to you because what you say may not correspond to reality."</P>
<P>"The only distinction I make here lies in the assertion of a <BR>non-programmable machine, one whose program does not lie <BR>in an instruction set. It doesn't program itself (as it doesn't <BR>have to) and you can't program it without interfering with <BR>what it would do on its own. With an instruction set you may <BR>emulate but not replicate it. In doing so you will have created <BR>something else. I am not arguing for or against the usefulness <BR>of such an approach, only that whatever results will not will <BR>not be the "same" as what you emulate."</P>
<P>What is it?&nbsp; An anolog computer?&nbsp; Are you sure it's not just currently too computationally complex emulate (like the weather)?</P>
<P>"If that's not your concern, then at least have the courtesy to <BR>remind others as well as yourself that the emulated results <BR>work "as if" they were the real thing, consciously reminding <BR>yourself that they are "not" the real thing. The difference <BR>continues to exist. When you get away from the implications <BR>of "as if" that's when you confuse the map with the <BR>territory."<G></P>
<P>The Indistinguability of Identities.</P>
<P>These aren't really the same:&nbsp; setA((2 + 2) + (4 + 4)) and setB((1 + 3) + (3 + 5))</P>
<P>Yet, on the next iteration they are the same: &nbsp;setA(4 + 8) and setB(4 + 8)</P>
<P>From this point on, the sets are indistinguishable.&nbsp; So, even when the elements of&nbsp;two systems are different, if their composites are identical then it is useless to think of those&nbsp;composites as different.&nbsp; Sentience is sentience, evolution is evolution--no matter what mechanism used.</P></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><p><hr SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://shopping.yahoo.com/?__yltc=s%3A150000443%2Cd%3A22708228%2Cslk%3Atext%2Csec%3Amail">The New Yahoo! Shopping</a> - with improved product search
--0-58749378-1065745172=:95453--