Even in this case, there is a difference between the cybernetic view of control of a system and the organismic view of exploration of new possibilities.
But I would like to know the precise distinctions.
Secondly , can we construct a state of possibilities for our formal model, in the second case?
I think this is related to the first question.
Even if we could, that doesn't mean that we know if our program will reach any of those states, because it's dynamics in this state space is unknown, unpredictable.
If we stay at the realm of formal models / computer programs, there are two cases.
In one case, we have constant functions / rewrite rules that react to the input and produce an output in a cyclical way / closed loop.
In the other case, rewrite rules/ functions are constructed as well during the loop, meaning that they change. The loop is maintained.
If we compare the two, is there a mathematical way to describe their degrees of freedom?
Can't we turn the second case to the first by introducing auxiliary variables?
From https://zenodo.org/records/21416181
Page 14
"Formalization is of limited use here, because self-manufacturing processes construct their own spaces of possibilities as they grow and evolve. Everything is relational and in flux: there are no fixed rules or entities or possibility spaces that we could use as the basis of a complete model"
The reasoning is that this living organisms are embodied, while a formal model is symbolic, thus the degrees of freedom of an organism is greater than that of a model.
Do you want to reduce loneliness in Society?
Do you want to not allow AI to fake human connection , intimacy , understanding?
Pick one of your friends and listen to her , understand her perspective, look at the world from her own eyes.
Each one of us is unique, a whole universe exists inside each one of our hearts.
Working on
Mathematics : What is the meaning of this?
What is the intuition behind it?
agda : What is the best syntax/definition
that will not give me pain in the future?
With agda, I spend 90% of my time doing that.
https://agda.readthedocs.io/en/latest/language/polarity.html
I really don't know why strictly positive is used here as well, when it is only one of the conditions, that of the closure to type variables.
I know how to use it now, but using the same name for two different things is confusing.
"In this paper we investigate strictly positive types which we define to be those types
which can be formed using 0, 1, +, ×, →, μ , ν with the restriction that types on
the left side of the arrow have to be closed with respect to type variables."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304397505003373?via%3Dihub
Finally, a good definition of what a strictly positive type is.
We are in a world where the only complex social organization is that of corporations and states.
Challenging this reality cannot be done in isolation, nor with grand plans from above.
But the direction of inquiry is clear. we research new local forms of organization in our effort to combine our powers / strengths.
This is a consciousness decision and it will not happen if we only look at the local level.
I think that many of us are starved for participation in small-scale systems in which we interact with other humans, and are treated like humans in return
I hope noone ever finds oneself in a position of despair, of no control of one's wellbeing and life.
Let me also mention that creative thinking happens at the border of order and chaos.
You destroy some rules, work inside the chaos, you have your epiphany and then you try to go back to order. Is this idea right? Does it make sense? Can it be formally described?
Examples of that are:
a) the dirac delta function
b) Einstein's mathematical naivety
Because scientific knowledge is huge, we rely on trust and word of mouth.
We are also emotional beings, in a complex world that is out of our control.
We are all crackpots 99% of the time.
What can we do?
I want to talk a little bit about "crackpots".
For many social and personal reasons, some people do not have the necessary skills to reason scientifically. They construct theories that do not hold to scrutiny.
But apart from the outliers, the truth is that 99% of what we believe, all of us, has not been deduced formally. We make judgements based on experience under incomplète information. We hear something on the news or at a bar, we talk to our friends or to our local cook, mechanic, doctor.
Has anyone thought of two parallel universes and groups of heroes where each group roleplays the other?
The one universe could be the"real" one, but noone is certain if the real group controls the imaginary or the opposite.
It could be both.
Idea of the day. Instead of having libraries, have lenses/views with which to update a git repository.
We do not push changes to a common library. We all have our different version and others can pull our changes from our repository even when our project is completely different.
Cooking : Italians , some of them, say that a recipe is something that you make on the spot. Meaning that you have a general idea, and then change the amount and type of the ingedients by tasting, while cooking.
For example, maybe your tomatoes are sour, or the opposite well matured. They create different flavors.
Your olive oil might be fresh and thus more bitter.
Your dough might have more water than normal and thus it might require to change the temperature and duration of baking.
etc.
One of the interesting things I am doing these dayson my personal life , is trying to incorporate feedback loops everywhere. It is a very interesting project. I will describe some examples.
This is something I do not like. The algorithms of the type system should be understandable, written in a page that you could perform yourself on paper. They should be meaningful for the user.
They shouldn't be opaque.
It is an interesting experiment for someone that is not a logician.
Trying to do proofs on paper. I can't be precise enough. I have always used the help of the theorem prover.
What does this mean? I do not know the exact theory of the type system. It is mostly intuition.