ONT Re: Architectronics Of Inquiry -- Discussion
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
AOI. Architectronics Of Inquiry -- Discussion 4
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
JA = Jon Awbrey
JP = Jack Park
Jack,
Just a few more random thoughts of interest to the
thinker thereof and gratuitious acts of curiosity,
as we go into the weekend of a weaker beginning.
JP: Somewhere in there lies the seeds of an architectural
implementation, one most likely guided by the diagrams
you are now drawing, but somewhere in there, motivated
by desires sparked more by Rosen than by anyone else;
I fully subscribe to Raschevsky's notion that we have
yet to invent a representation scheme which allows us
to discover and understand that which constitutes
life itself. Along the way, I have discovered
quantum entanglement, and I have posited that *it*
is the *thing* we disentangle when we tease open
living cells, whereupon they die and from which
we are completely unable to reconstruct them.
Yes, I remember encountering and being goaded on by
McCulloch's early remarks along the same lines about
the logic of 3-adic relations.
By way of free association, I know there's some curious links
between statistical physics, graph-theoretic cacti, quantum
state entanglement, topological dynamics, knot theory, and
the CSP-GSB way of looking at logic, some of which I once
mused through several seminars on, and teasers of which
you can find on Lou Kauffman's web pages. Here's an
old note on that:
JA: ZOO Discussion 5 -- http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg05175.html
Under the Sunday Supplement "Link Of A Link" category, be sure to
check out the home page of knot theorist Lou Kauffman, especially
his "Box Algebra Exercise". Because I am trying to focus on the
problems of actually computing things, I will have to stick with
finite strings and trees for quite a while, but Kauffman's work
will give you a taste of what a semantics for infinite and/or
re-entrant logical expressions would have to be like. These
issues come up in the branch of topology that studies knots,
and they provide an intuitive foundation for the study of
so-called "non-well-founded set theory" that was already
underway twenty years before Peter Aczel's book came out,
though of course one can trace the dimmer beginnings of
the subject way back before either one of these sources.
http://www.lawsofform.org/
http://www2.math.uic.edu/~kauffman/
http://www.math.uic.edu/~kauffman/Papers.html
http://www2.math.uic.edu/~kauffman/Arithmetic.htm
JP: Sure, we can analyze hell out of every word down to Peirce's triads.
Sure we can construct commutative graphs ala Rosen. But, in the end,
where do you go with those? One of the grand problems I had with all
the discussions going on in the Mikulecky letters:
http://www.vcu.edu/complex/
was that nobody was able to take Rosen's 10C-6 and "fill in the blanks."
(10C-6 is the commutative diagram that is Rosen's "canonical organism",
a metabolism-repair diagram which, when drawn, elicits reproduction
for free, found in his book 'Life Itself'). Nobody seems to know
what to do with a basic MR diagram. Does anybody know what to
do with Peirce's triads?
I remember an extended discussion with Howard Pattee about Rosen's diagram
and the "epistemic diagram" from Hertz, in connection with category theory
and Peirce's thrice-magic. I've got it on file somewhere as it has one of
the most careful exe.geses that I ever gave of my favorite sign definition
from Peirce, and I've been meaning to clean it up for general reuse.
JP: I think we are a loooooong way from wherever it is we want to be.
Not to 1-down you or anything, but I don't think we've made
even that big a yardage yet -- post traumatic game disorder? --
we're still a looooooooooooong way from where we say we are.
Spell-checking by Gooogle ...
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
http://www.cs.bsu.edu/homepages/mighty/history.html
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o