A revolutionary OS/Programming Idea

[John Newman]

Lynn said,
"...Your friendly neighborhood physicist could set you
straight on this one.  The universe is in continuous
motion with all parts joined seamlessly. ..."

Lynn, the whole notion of QM is based on the "quantum"
of energy.  That means a finite amount of energy and
matter.


"...Tell you what, let's get back to this one once we
can predict the weather 100% say for an entire month. 
I don't mean an approximation.  I mean the same every
square inch.  Let's do something simple first, then
work our way up to the universe.<g>..."

What I meant to said was that 'if we could find the
unified model for the PHYSICS of the unvirse'--Then we
could ascertain its history.  For example, if two
balls are moving through space in a closed system
(they are alone) in opposite direction of eachother, I
could surmise from my knowledge of mechanics that, at
a period of time before my observation, the two balls
came from the same point, and that something like a
collision happened.  Now, if we had a closed system of
more balls, and the behaviour of these balls are
constrained much like the laws of physics constrains
matter, then only a subset of all possible states will
be able to happen.  Because the number of possible
states is limited, we only need to observe a small
percentage of the system's data, and then we can say,
"Only some initial conditions will allow for these
circumstances.  Out of <large number> possible causes,
only <smaller number> could possibly result in this
state."  Then, of these smaller number of causes, we
look at the model for each one, and differentiate
between them by the features of their endstate (point
of time of the effect we are observing).  Once we have
found the differences between these causes, we can
look for particular features in the system and say
"due to these features, this effect could only derive
from that cause."

So, looking at particles by themselves will lead to
information loss, but looking at agregates of
particles will allow some particles to act as
reference points to information about other
particles--so one would only need a subset of the data
from the system to derive its whole nature, given one
knows the rules.

"...No, I think we want to include as much as possible
within the realm of science and the scientific method.
 We want to be able to predict even with statistical
accuracy to reflect probabilistic phenomenon we
observe. ..."

The only reason we observe probabilistic phenomenon is
because we measure it statistically.  I think it's
fallacious.  Like you pointed out, nature doesn't
contradict itself.  So, why, if I feel a baseball in
my hand, should I assume that it's existence is based
on some probabilistic function, where it's only more
likely than not to actually be in my hand.  That's
erroneous.


"...My point is that it isn't adaptable in the first
place.  Adaptable software doesn't and can't occur. 
It can't because it can't be limited by a fixed
instruction set (machine), fixed logic (machine), and
fixed programming (software).  Design a machine
without an instruction set, not based on logic, and
which requires no external programming.  If you do,
you can't possibly write software for it.  You may,
just may, engage in behavorial modification which may
or may not have the desired effect.<g>..."

Lynn, there's been a lot of work done on adaptive
programs.  Have you ever heard of genetic algorithms? 
It's actually at one of the forefronts of theoretical
biology.

Read these (especially the second one) and see your
local alife sites:
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/ai/machinelearning.jsp
http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2003/5/8/7650/54427

"...Someday perhaps we will understand sentience. 
Right now we have to content ourselves with the word. 
We need to remember that all we have is the word and
the word is not the thing. ..."

That's agreeable.

Have you made your programming language yet?

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com