[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[Andy Skelton]

Magnus to Andy:
> When software developers make computer programs, or viruses, they completely
> disregard gravity, voltage, magnetism, etc. etc. I assure you. If, for some
> reason, there's a heat problem for example, they blame the hardware guys and
> let them fix it.

I'm a software developer. I know that my programs operate in a logical
arena without regard for the physics we observe in our arena. But I
also know that my software will frequently undergo breaches of the
laws of logic in which it operates, such as when a bit of data is
corrupted by a bad physical disk. I don't write biological programs
but if I did, they wouldn't bother to blame the hardware guys; how
would they know anything about hardware or guys? My biological
programs might eventually learn to speak of "The User" in reverent
tones, but as I wrote them they would simply detect the locality of
the damage to the logical fabric and avoid it. Like the amoeba
avoiding the acid.

> What I tried to say is that the software, or virus, in a computer is living
> in a completely new universe. Or to follow your card metaphor, it's not just
> a new stack, it's a new deck!

We do like to see our intellectual terms adopted by others, don't we?
I do not contemplate a deck of cards from which to deal upon a stack
but I'll understand if you want to call it a deck. I'm not referring
to anything new, it's just a short word I'm using for any given
instance of the static patterns illustrated here:
http://moq.org/forum/Pirsig/emm.html#page13

> There's nothing magic here, and we don't have to change the MoQ or anything.
> It's just a wonderful opportunity to explore different universes, *and* to
> verify that the MoQ works in both!

Yes, isn't it fun? I hope it is also useful. People striving to create
AI can derive useful ways of evaluating their plans. For instance, can
a system of hardware and software be created that will reliably
support a pattern of binary logic with absolutely zero faults
experienced by whatever evolves there? Should the biological patterns
of binary logic be allowed to experience faults in the inorganic
patterns of binary logic or would that be too chaotic?

In SODV Pirsig clarifies the inorganic level as "stable inorganic
patterns of value." That might inform the decision to first develop a
fault-free system of logic. See also my other thread about switching
off the internet, in which the ability of one stack to interrupt
another stack is brought up for moral consideration.

Andy