A Transdisciplinary Lingua Franca

+4  

Introduce a tiny set of exhaustive transdisciplinary concepts that most people are intimately familiar with, that can represent all processes that people go through to build their worlds, then use them to organize information, and get people understand the modern world.

YAML 発想

One of the hardest things in ensuring access know-how is knowledge representation. It is not easy to find concepts that most people would be intimately familiar with, and yet that those concepts would map well across disciplines. So, here is one set of such concepts: to ask Questions, then proceeding to search for Ideas to answer them, then to start and run Projects based on those ideas, and to do Tasks (or "Challenges") with respect to relevant Places to obtain Results. The below is an illustration of how transdisciplinary those concepts are, comparing them with the equivalent concepts in computer science and how they are related to the physics.

In Computer Sciences, these concepts correspond to what programmer does within their programs, that rely on TYPES, FUNCTIONS, VARIABLES, VALUES, OPERATIONS and PROCESSES. However, as Alan Turing had shown, these processes decompose into simple INPUT/OUTPUT of bits.

In Physics, scientists study INPUT/OUTPUT processes of MATTER and ENERGY instead, and use mathematics to model the changes they see, formalizing and approximating their behaviors with field equations describing phase spaces. (Note: as we discussed on the idea "MRSGREN", humans do that I/O of M/E as they live as well.)

Think of "FIELD FLUX" in the image as computation -- in that sense, our industries are "physics apps", and if projects are examples of groups of humans "self-programming" to execute on their dreams, then having such examples of contextualized execution (or running of projects) in public would work like open source software, and this is an idea of one set of hypothetical of concepts to achieve this. This idea is currently is being tested here on 0oo.




(通知しない) (不必要) ログインしてください。

I / Oはどのようになりますか:<タイプ、関数、プロセス、操作、変数、および値?>

10100111011010101010101101101100101011 それはすべて、単純なチューリングマシンがどのようにしてこれらの6つのものになるのか、私たちがよく知っていることだと思います。 明らかに:

- Turing Tape データまたは状態です。 -タイプチューリングテープの一般的なパターン。 -変数チューリングテープに配置します。 -操作時計が読み取り/書き込み場所でチェックされると発生します。 -プロセス:操作を実行するのは物理的な時計です-チューリングマシンのモーターと読み取り/書き込みヘッド。 -関数:実行する操作の値を格納するのは変数の '関数' タイプです。

コンピュータが何をしているのかを理解するのは難しくありませんが、明らかにこれらのことに分解されます。コンピューターが完全にNANDゲートから構築されている方法、または脳が完全に非同期ニューロンから構築されている方法、そしてこれらの低レベルのものがこれらの6つの概念になる方法の理解からどのような洞察を得ることができるかを学びたいと思います。これらの同じ概念を実行している社会を参照してください。おそらく、情報プロセスがこれらの6つのものになる方法を理解することは、根本的に新しい何か(組織の形態のような)を思い付くのに役立つでしょう。 方程式モデルのようなより抽象的なものと、polycontext metasymbolのようなさらに抽象的なものがあります。 / method / 863 / metaformat)。普遍的な加法性のようなものはありますか、そしてそれはどのように普遍的な善に向かって収束することができますか?

興味深いことに、 CategoriesTypesQuestionsQuestsQueriesです...GoalsIntentsProblemsDomainsInterestsと一致します。これは、クエリはカテゴリを意味します。すべての検索クエリはカテゴリです。

How does I/O become:

10100111011010101010101101101100101011 That all makes me wonder, how does a simple Turing Machine become these 6 things, that we are so common with. Obviously:

  • Values: it's the Turing Tape data, or states.
  • Types: just common patterns on the Turing Tape.
  • Variables: places on Turing Tape.
  • Operations: it's what happens when the Clock ticks with read-write places.
  • Processes: it's the physical Clocks that make operations happen - the Turing Machine's motors and read/write head.
  • Functions: it's 'function' type of variables that store values as possible operations to execute.

It's not hard to see how everything what computer does, clearly breaks down to these things. I would be interested in learning how computer is built entirely out of NAND gates, or how brain is built entirely out of asynchronous neurons, and what insights can we get from the understanding of how these low-level things becomes these 6 concepts, cause I do see these same concepts running societies. Perhaps understanding how information processes become these 6 things, would be help to come up with something (like a form of organization) that's fundamentally new. There are more abstract things, like the equation model, and even more abstract thing like polycontext metasymbol. Is there something like universal additivity, and how can it converge towards the universal good?

It's interesting to observe, that Categories and Types are Questions, Quests and Queries... coincide with Goals, Intents, Problems, Domains, Interests. It means that Queries are Categories: every search query is a category.


型、変数、クラス、メソッド、型クラスは、コンパイラーによって使用される単なる構文糖衣であることに注意することが重要だと思います。そのため、実際にはコンピュータコードには存在しません。

最終的に、コンパイラーによって生成されるのは一連の命令です。変数、メソッド、または型の命令はありません。

コンパイラの抽象化は計算を行いません!コンピュータに互換性がない理由の一部は、これが残念な制限であるということだと思います。重要なのは、実装間で共有されるデータ構造とフィールドです。これがコードの互換性を高めるものです。

互換性のないコンピュータコードのカテゴリを作成します。

I think it is important to note that types, variables, classes, methods, typeclasses are just syntactic sugar used by the compiler. As such they dont actually exist in computer code.

Ultimately what gets generated by the compiler is a sequence of instructions. There is no instruction for a variable or a method or a type.

Compiler abstractions result in no computation! I think part of why computers are so incompatible is that this is an unfortunate limitation. What matters is the data structure and fields that are shared between implementations. This is what makes code compatible.

I will make a category for incompatible computer code.



    : Mindey
    :  -- 
    :  -- 
    

--chronological,