[MD] Metabiology

ADRIE KINTZIGER parser666 at gmail.com
Fri Aug 27 11:22:21 PDT 2010 

Hi Magnus.

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.

Infinite loops are no boundary for QComputing, in fact, a quantum computer
kan work without loops.
a bit like an ssd memory that is disconnected from power, disengage the
powersource from the quantumcomputer, and it will run further on,
disconnected , eternally, the atoms are spinnig , see---they do not come to
a halt ,.

in this environment the oracle resides within the neural network of the
machine, its no stand alone entity, like a co-processor, or a
floating point processor, or the north or south bridge, in the quantum
processor , every proces runs at kerneldepth.

A normal pc ticks, performing 1 instruction at a time, running thrue the
stack, in an endless loop, as an event awaiting other events
Its boundary is the iglo-problem, probably Andy knows this problem.

the next boundary is the list of natural numbers, as in 1, 2, 3 ,4 etc, thes
are the naturals, it counts up and down.
The boolean locig on top of it fills in the reeël numbers inbetween, all
point figures possible on a linear line, so this list is endless too
in another manner. but thes are boundary's.

The quantum computer can switch to ANY state, al natural numbers, all reeel
numbers all state's between zero-one, indefinetly.
But can also switch to the

"quantum-state" the moment between existence of an atom-versus non existence
, the 600 Billionth of a second split time before the state switches. the
reversing of the spin.
strangely enouch, there is no "iglo" problem, the computer can do it all at
the same split second.

It goes further, the entanglement.

the entanglement is proven nowadays, the computer in quantum-state can
communicate its states to anoter quantum pc on the other end of the
universe, without time delay, without connection what so ever.

entanglement is already in use
maybe some things are to be found at--- entanglement datatransfer
on google.


hm, the oracle, yes as implemented , very limited.but intrinsically not in
development.

but one can code the complete theory of relativity within the oracle (only
an example) maybe Andy can enlighten this.
i think the oracle can grow unlimited.


once more , on the quantum computer, a cup of koffie , a sugar block, a
fingernail can be a computer, all the wateratomscore's can store the
information and the working algorithms at the same time.
try to look at this at this way.
A picture made by lasers ,on a glassplate, as an interference pattern, a
normal picture in color of a person, wel, the imprint on the glassplate
resides in any atom, any molecule, brake the glassplate to pieces , small as
dust , and enlighten them again, 1 piece of glass, it show to contain the
complete picture again, because the imprint is a pattern of interference.
 The quantum computer makes interferencelike  patterns in almost a zero
amount of time.


regarding your end sentence

well , the artificial intelligence level, its on the treshold of discovery.
Adrie



2010/8/27 Magnus Berg <McMagnus at home.se>

> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 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
>



-- 
parser

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list