[MD] Metabiology

[Magnus Berg]

Hi guys

Interesting you mentioned quantum computers. I tried to introduce MD to 
them 1-2 years ago without much success. Perhaps a quantum computer 
wouldn't mind infinite loops the same way traditional computers do? In 
that case, the oracle wouldn't have to do that check.

On the other hand, as the oracle works now, it seems to play in only a 
biological level, or rather, it judges its offspring in only one 
dimension. If a mutation would take off in a new direction, it wouldn't 
have any means of deciding if it's better or worse because it would 
simply not see the change.

So, the oracle, as implemented here is very limited. Andy's approach 
would probably work itself better up the levels inside the virtual 
stack. And instead of relying on an oracle to judge betterness, it 
should compete for limited resources as our biological life does, but 
then it might not be a good idea to let it out in the wild on the internet.

It would be interesting to see which levels it would be able to create.

	Magnus




On 2010-08-27 12:17, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote:
> Well , Jc, it pleases me that you are interested in these things, you should
> be..people should be.
> Stll thinking about your Monterey-bay story, i liked it alot , i'm a fan of
> native stuff, basic ,real life.
> I recognize for myself many things in it, the fact that we are both workers
> , having to work with our hands, being a
> family man, having a case with this issue and the children-issue.
> I was watching a documentary on geographic channel about the moterey-area,
> superb aquarium the have there.
> There is only 1 in Europe (France; Boulogne Sur Mer) that is comparable, i
> visited it once , superb...looking like the documentary.
> So your story re-triggered this memory for me. loved it.
> I was breeding tropical fishes for about 17 years on a row, some years ago,
> earned a lot of good money with them.
> The commercial circuit is bying them all, the offspring, due to
> importlimitations , see.They are always in big demand for big
> nests of offspring.
> So, unimportant probably for you, but not for me.
> Maybe within 2 years i will setup some new aquariums, to breed again.
>
> Anyway, i was reading later on, Dan restricting you on telling story's to
> him, or to eachother.hmm.
> This is not my point of view, i like story's.
> I always did.
>
> Now about Rorty, i'v never read Royce, and i think i should...really, but
> not for the Booleans he is using here.
>
> Strange , but honestly, the difference between this Booleans here mentioned
> , and the module we were talking about here
> is about the difference between a bycicle and the space-shuttle, the
> difference between a jumbo-jet and a fly.
> The only thing Royce is showing here is a ticking clock, no more.The example
> he is providing is dated very much.
>
> The  module from Andy, is capable of running dynamically on a quantum
> computer, the module is a hyperthreader developing hyperthreads that are
> evolving,...it is not pretending DQ, it is DQ!! , and its not running
> forever in an endless loop pur sang but
> in an evolving to further Dq-based endless loop because the Dq Is really
> undefinable.
> The quantum computer is already on the starting grid.
>
>
> Hope this will not offend you John,please feel free to move on on
> developing.
>
> And i'm not a programmer, not by near or by far, i can only do some basic
> stuff like some linux use, i can use visual basic 8
> in the windows evironment, but that is only adressing the modules , and fill
> in the propertyfields, its scripting only.
> And only for some little things , Andy and Magnus are lightyears further
> than me.
>
> Strangely enough the module was displayed  like physikal processes are
> displayed, this made me able to read it.
>
> OKay, greetzz, thx for showing interest.
> Adrie
>
>
> 2010/8/27 John Carl<ridgecoyote at gmail.com>
>
>> I agree Adrie,
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 1:24 PM, ADRIE KINTZIGER<parser666 at gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thx , Andy , this stuff is incredible interesting
>>>
>>>
>> I was just reading some other interesting stuff that made me wonder if I
>> combined the two, compiled and let it run it's course, you'd end with LIFE,
>> heh-heh.
>>
>> It's ALIVE!
>> ---------------
>> http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/SAAP/MSU/DP16G.html
>> ------------------
>> Royce derives a complete Boolean algebra upon a different basis: through
>> the
>> definition of  a more general and inclusive order system, System S.  S’s
>> laws and principles may be not be defined in first order logic since Royce
>> implicitly quantifies over relations and sets.  A second-order definition
>> is
>> too cumbersome for our purposes, so I will remain within the informal
>> language of S.  This language uses a, b, c, d … to symbolize collections;
>> a,
>> b, c, … to symbolize elements in collections. Collections may stand under
>> O,
>> E, and F relations, relations which are n-ary, or what Royce calls
>> polyadic.
>>
>>             1.  For any collection a and any collection b, if a is an
>> “O-collection,”  symbolized by O(a), then O(ab).  This defines an operation
>> of adjunction.
>>
>>      2.  For any collection b, for any element bn of b, and for any
>> collection d, if O(dbn) and O(b), then O(d).  This defines   an  operation
>> of adjunction.
>>
>>       3.  There exists an element x.
>>
>>       4.  For any element x, there exists an element y, such that x ¹ y.
>>
>>       5.  For any element x, for any element y,  there exists a z, such that
>> if x ¹ y, then            O(xyz) and ~O(xz) and ~O(yz).
>>
>>       6.  For any element x, for any collection a, there exists a y, such
>> that if O(ax), then O(xy) and O(xyan).
>>
>>
>>
>> The rough structure of the system so defined is that of an infinitely large
>> O-collection, which by virtue of axioms 5 and 6 is continuous, i.e., it is
>> dense and includes its limits.  Indeed, Royce nicknames his System the
>> “logical continuum.”
>>
>> -----------------------
>> John: The "logical continuum" with rationality itself as a subset!
>> ---------------------
>>
>>             Certain “transformations” of this “logical continuum” lead to
>> promising results. The relational properties of O-collections are identical
>> to special cases of Boolean multiplication:  O(abc..) = a · b · c · … = 0 .
>> Because of this analogy with Boolean operations, other relations akin to
>> those in Boolean algebra may be defined.  If, for example, O(ab), then a
>> totally excludes b and vice-versa, elements which Royce consequently labels
>> obverses.  It then follows directly that if ~a, then b, and if ~b, then a.
>> This is to say that a binary O-relation implies two conditional statements
>> of the foregoing form.  Further, if O(abc) then, if ~b, then a and c.  In
>> other words, if a,b, and c exclude one another in their totality, then it
>> follows that if we replace one of the elements with its negative or
>> obverse,
>> the other two may “overlap” or “coexist.”  Royce calls ~b in this situation
>> the “mediator” of a and c, and symbolizes it as follows:  F(~b/ac).
>> Finally, if one designates an element of this triad the origin, say a, then
>> the F-relation assumes a binary form, with respect to the origin, and also
>> becomes asymmetrical and transitive.  Such a relation can therefore be the
>> basis of partially or totally ordered sets.  Royce symbolizes such
>> relations
>> as follows:  ~b -<a c .  This appears to be a modification of Peirce’s
>> symbolization of illation.
>>
>>             Royce derives the whole of the Boolean operations by converting
>> the O-collection of S into a partially ordered set, that is an
>> F-collection,
>> as follows.  He arbitrarily selects an element and designates it the
>> 0-element.  By the axioms S, the obverse of 0 exists, which we may
>> designate
>> as 1, and the totality of the remaining elements become so ordered by
>> F-relations that for all elements x, x -<o 1.  In more informal language,
>> every element of set is implied by 0 and implies 1 so that every x is
>> “between” 0 and 1.  The usual operations of Boolean algebra are then
>> verifiable by virtue of the construction of this partially ordered set.
>> Axioms 5 and 6 ensure that this Boolean algebra is complete.
>> -----------------------------
>> John: Now here is where I think it gets especially Moq-worthy - the
>> introduction of 0, or DQ - not just an axis, but a direction! And a
>> randomizing one at that.
>> -----------------------------
>>
>>             Royce’s derivation of a complete Boolean algebra is unusual in
>> two respects, both of which he attributes to the work of British
>> mathematician A.B. Kempe.  First, the 0-element is arbitrarily selected
>> from
>> the elements of S, and second, the set is ordered not by a binary relation,
>> but by a triadic relation.  However, the inclusion of 0 in the relation
>> reduces the triadic relation to binary.   The 0-element consequently
>> functions as merely an origin, in terms of which the direction of the
>> asymmetry of the binary relation is defined.  It follows from these unusual
>> features of Royce’s System, that one may define an infinite number of
>> complete Boolean algebras from System S, each ordered with respect to the
>> particular element selected as the origin.  In other words, System S
>> “contains” the partially ordered set in terms of which the Boolean
>> operations are defined in an infinite number of ways.
>>
>>             It is notable that Royce thinks that his System also “contains”
>> any possible ordered set, and so avers that his System is a statement of a
>> complete system of categories.  Since all rational activity, as Royce puts
>> it,  is dependent upon ordering relations, and all ordering relations may
>> be, so he argues, defined in term of his System, his claim is prima facie
>> plausible.  It turns on his ability to derive various ordered sets.  Before
>> he died, he successfully derived the order system of common metric
>> geometry,
>> and in unpublished  notes attempted to derive projective geometry.  The
>> definitive mathematical investigation of his System he has left to us to
>> pursue.
>>
>> ------------------
>>
>> John:  Catch that?  All rational activity is dependent upon ordering
>> relations (patterning) .  this is where the ongoing iteration in a
>> metabiological program could be exposed to DQ!
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry about that, you may now go back to your regular programming.
>>
>>
>> John the delusional
>> 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/md/archives.html
>>
>
>
>