[MD] Quantum computing

[ian glendinning]

Wow Magnus, n-Tuples twice in a month ! ;-)

I have to say, I agree with your "dimensions" rather than simple
(one-dimensional) "layers" view of MoQ. All "things" can be
categorised on these four "aspects" - so placed as points and patterns
(arrangements of points) in that four dimensional space - evolutionary
time and change are another axis probably.

The thing I would warn though is not to think of them as entirely
orthogonal - there is some level of independence, but there is also
"dependent arising" to use a Buddhist term that links them and their
causal relationships - causation is not one-way either. So, these axes
are distinct, but not strictly orthogonal.

As you say yourself, a certain level of evolution and complexity has
to occur in any one layer before anything can arise in the next. Those
(static) patterns of complexity support the higher layer, but do not
constrain its further evolution. I think it all fits reality
beautifully.

Regards
Ian

On 2/19/07, Magnus Berg <McMagnus at home.se> wrote:
> Hi
>
> > [Case]
> > Without trying to start a big to do about them the problem with the levels
> > occurs at the edges. They tend to be arbitrary abstractions. Organic
> > chemistry is relegated to the inorganic level. Social structures among other
> > species are confined to the biological level. The social and intellectual
> > levels are confused in ways that cause nothing but headaches. And for what?
>
> In my view, the levels don't have "edges". They are orthogonal. Pirsig doesn't
> use that word in Lila, but an orthogonal arrangement of the levels doesn't
> contradict anything he says either. Higher levels are dependent on lower levels,
>  but they are not an extension of it, they are not continuous, they are discreet.
>
> My interpretation of this is that they are orthogonal. Think of the inorganic
> level as an X-axis extending to the right. When it's complex (long) enough, the
> biological level can extend upwards on the Y-axis forming a 2D plane. The social
> level extends the 2D plane into a 3D cube and the intellectual turns it into a
> 4D hypercube. Such an arrangement makes the levels absolutely dependent on each
> other and makes each type of value very easy to spot. There's no fuzzy borders
> between the levels, they just go off in completely different directions.
>
> And to be honest, I frankly don't see why most people tend to treat the levels
> as just one long one-dimensional line (along some sort of complexity axis).
> Because, as you say, it just turns the levels into arbitrary abstractions. In a
> one-dimensional view of the levels, each *thing* can only belong to one level.
> But that's the reason it becomes so fuzzy and causes headaches. In a
> multi-dimensional view, each *thing* have a 4-tuple coordinate placing it in 1,
> 2, 3 or 4 levels at once.
>
> > [Case]
> > I have mentioned several times that Pirsig's use of the term Quality for
> > "Tao" draws attention away from the Taoist vision of The Way. But you also
> > raise a perennial problem I have with static and dynamic. You seem to be
> > using the terms in a sensible way, that is stasis and change. Am I
> > misreading you? Evolution is all about stability and change. Complexity is
> > about the quality and quantity of change.
>
> I don't think you're misreading me. Stability and change sounds like the static
> and dynamic I use.
>
> Not sure what you mean by "Complexity is about the quality and quantity of
> change" though. Complexity, to me, is more about the number of possible
> combinations in a system.
>
>        Magnus
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>