hot time in town tonight
Locked
12
12
Re: hot time in town tonight
 
|
Useful for making files like this!
-rw-rw-r-- 1 mdaniels mdaniels 92G Jul 22 23:34 all.ped.gz I wish I had more energy for trying out bleeding edge stuff like Rust compiled to wasm. I like to think I try-out more categories of crazy stuff than I used to, but I probably do not. -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 3:34 PM To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] hot time in town tonight Speaking of GZIP, I learned about PIGZ just the other day while failing to set up a rust-driven wasm-capable docker container: https://zlib.net/pigz/ On 9/22/20 3:28 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > It seems to me totalitarianism could be a cause or an effect of the constituency of a society. If we run the population through GZIP we arrive at an effective type count. The redundant could seek out a totalitarian to get a `fix' of hope, and they may become so addicted they will accept any lie to keep it. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
92G! All really is one. I'm trying to pack all the try-it-out things coming down my pipeline all in one try-out. A friend of mine wants me to come on board his start-up. He wants to use Rust, of which I'm totally ignorant. I'd like to find a good stack for proper (FAIR, Open) computational publications (e.g. https://wholetale.org/). And you mentioned wasm awhile back. Embarrassingly, the most frustrating part for me was configuring the stupid ports for test deployments of the container. I'm constantly reminded of my incompetence. [sigh]
I wonder, though, if the nihilism of the redundant is, could be, satisfied by their chosen authority? They do, really, seem to experience some strong self-satisfaction when they "own the libs". What was it Seth Meyers said the other day? ... something like, "It's like telling a middle school bully, 'Giving me a wedgie won't make your parents get back together.' He knows that, he just wants to give you that wedgie!" On 9/22/20 3:54 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Useful for making files like this! > > -rw-rw-r-- 1 mdaniels mdaniels 92G Jul 22 23:34 all.ped.gz > > I wish I had more energy for trying out bleeding edge stuff like Rust compiled to wasm. I like to think I try-out more categories of crazy stuff than I used to, but I probably do not. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 3:34 PM > To: FriAM <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] hot time in town tonight > > Speaking of GZIP, I learned about PIGZ just the other day while failing to set up a rust-driven wasm-capable docker container: https://zlib.net/pigz/ > > On 9/22/20 3:28 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> It seems to me totalitarianism could be a cause or an effect of the constituency of a society. If we run the population through GZIP we arrive at an effective type count. The redundant could seek out a totalitarian to get a `fix' of hope, and they may become so addicted they will accept any lie to keep it. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
For those here fascinated by the impending (or not) Apocalypto
(Mel Gibson), Jackpot (William Gibson), Rapture (Evangelicals) or
Redux Deseret (Dave West), I submit the following novel series by
a very prolific Santa Fe Author, S.M. Stirling, called "the
Emberverse" set in the days and decades after an abrupt shift in
one or more physical constants yielding a world where most
concentrated-energy systems no longer work, Electricity, Internal
Combustion, Steam power, Explosives, etc. all just "fizzle", and
the result is a Utopian/Dystopian world dropped into feudalism
with a backdrop of high-functioning self-organized societies
around Pagan/Wiccan principles. I met Stirling in 1998, soon after he moved here and quite a while before he started this particular series, but he was already quite prolific and quite impressive in his works... with acute attention to detail whether it be scientific, historical, political or sociological. I used to see him writing on a laptop at a table in Joe's Dining at the Y of Rodeo/Zia, but never interrupted him as I think he was in his "zone"... I'm guessing Joe gave him a bottomless cup... this was usually mid-late mornings for me... or call it early lunch. I have no limit to my capacity for morbid fascination, and Stirling's works feed that well, though I will admit to dropping off reading his Emberverse after maybe three novels? There may be as many as 8? You gotta love William Gibson's term: "Jackpot" described from a somewhat distant future (maybe 2100 or later?) looking back at "these times we are in" with some perspective of hindsight. He describes this "Jackpot" as something of a "Slow Cooked Apocalypse" . This link (author Robert Berry) introduced me to a mid-century movement attributed as a form of Anarchism, referred to as Situationism or Situationists. I'll defer to Glen's quicker, more focused mind, and quiver full of Anarchist tropes and ideas as to whether these Situationists in any way correlate with his offered "Anarchic Syndicalism", but what little I have investigated suggested there is a shared rhyme scheme at the least? - Steve Glen writes: < I suppose one could make an argument in the form of renormalizing an infinite number of variables. Let's imagine society is describable by an infinitely long math expression (a right hand side only, not implying an equation), where each term has a coefficient, modifying its contribution to whatever set of composition functions the expression uses (+,⨂,⊙, …). But at any given time or locale only a finite number of the coefficients have non-zero value. Then we can think of an apocalypse (or efflorescence) might be a shift in which coefficients have zero values. Maybe the number of non-zero coefficients shrinks (or grows, respectively). Maybe a discrete event might happen to zero out all the non-zero terms and non-zero another set of zeroed terms. Or maybe non-zero-ness smoothly flows around the coefficients. IDK. But if you think this way, words like "apocalypse" kinda lose their intensity. > The relatively high-level composition functions might involve, say, actions of the government, and the relatively low-level the functioning of a calcium pump. Counting those functions that involve humans as distinct from other material or forms of life is arbitrary but if all those functions became un-callable due to typing considerations, then that's one way to define an apocalypse: Everyone is dead. If the economy collapses completely, or it becomes impossible to feed most people, that might also reasonably be labeled an apocalypse. (Simply tabulating what is human-involved means tracking the dynamics of things: Unwinding the stack of those compositions and doing attribution, that is hard by itself.) One could do broader attribution to count other species, like with the Chicxulub impactor. I was thinking more on the boundary of extinction when those that have the awareness to fight or flight do so, and that is an indicator of their general fitness. On the other hand, if there are variations in the number of highly-correlated deep compositions versus less-correlated deep compositions, that seems more in the realm of politics. Serious but not apocalyptic. Marcus - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: hot time in town tonight
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
I think linear/affine types as in Rust are cool. For one thing, they seem plausible for physical analogues to computation, like your infinitely-long expressions. In a biochemical system it often wouldn't make sense to `share' a variable across several expressions. A `physical' function would consume its inputs. Similarly linear types are like the no-cloning theorem for quantum states. It's a small change for a person used to writing functional programs to get in the habit of using linear types. Similar to Swarm's notion of switching phases, but where the switching of the method sets is understood by the compiler and can be enforced. Even besides the physical intuition, linear types provide a low-overhead way to manage memory, like is the norm for complex stack-allocated objects in C++.
-----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 4:15 PM To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] hot time in town tonight 92G! All really is one. I'm trying to pack all the try-it-out things coming down my pipeline all in one try-out. A friend of mine wants me to come on board his start-up. He wants to use Rust, of which I'm totally ignorant. I'd like to find a good stack for proper (FAIR, Open) computational publications (e.g. https://wholetale.org/). And you mentioned wasm awhile back. Embarrassingly, the most frustrating part for me was configuring the stupid ports for test deployments of the container. I'm constantly reminded of my incompetence. [sigh] I wonder, though, if the nihilism of the redundant is, could be, satisfied by their chosen authority? They do, really, seem to experience some strong self-satisfaction when they "own the libs". What was it Seth Meyers said the other day? ... something like, "It's like telling a middle school bully, 'Giving me a wedgie won't make your parents get back together.' He knows that, he just wants to give you that wedgie!" On 9/22/20 3:54 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Useful for making files like this! > > -rw-rw-r-- 1 mdaniels mdaniels 92G Jul 22 23:34 all.ped.gz > > I wish I had more energy for trying out bleeding edge stuff like Rust compiled to wasm. I like to think I try-out more categories of crazy stuff than I used to, but I probably do not. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 3:34 PM > To: FriAM <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] hot time in town tonight > > Speaking of GZIP, I learned about PIGZ just the other day while > failing to set up a rust-driven wasm-capable docker container: > https://zlib.net/pigz/ > > On 9/22/20 3:28 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> It seems to me totalitarianism could be a cause or an effect of the constituency of a society. If we run the population through GZIP we arrive at an effective type count. The redundant could seek out a totalitarian to get a `fix' of hope, and they may become so addicted they will accept any lie to keep it. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
"It's a small change for a person used to writing functional programs to get
in the habit of using linear types." A small change in habit, but possibly a big change in underlying logic. I don't have much experience with linear types, but I can see the switch from closed cartesian categories to closed symmetric monoidal categories coming with some friction. -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: hot time in town tonight
|
|
Some talks from Haskell folks. My experience is with Mercury.
https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/wikis/linear-types -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of jon zingale Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 10:14 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] hot time in town tonight "It's a small change for a person used to writing functional programs to get in the habit of using linear types." A small change in habit, but possibly a big change in underlying logic. I don't have much experience with linear types, but I can see the switch from closed cartesian categories to closed symmetric monoidal categories coming with some friction. -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
A common problem I have when arguing that "mechanistic models" are qualitatively different from "descriptive models" is describing what it is about "mechanism" that's being modeled. I see it as a spectrum. Compartment models provide a good example. Some ODE contains a term that homogenizes all the stuff that happens inside cells versus, say, the intercellular matrix. Because there are 2 compartments, identifiable by terms in the equations, you can say it's "mechanistic" ... funging a bit on the "-istic" suffix. If I make some claim like: "Any one cell might behave differently from any other cell based on its history", then we could create another compartment, cells of type 1 and type 2. We can do that progressively until there's a compartment for each particular cell (and each particular extra-cellular space engineered by the actions of the cell).
In this sense, FP is similar to OOP in its particularity, and they contrast with homogenizing paradigms like systems dynamics models. What I'd *like* to do is find a way to emphatically ask my clients: "Does particularity matter?" Chemistry seems to say "no" for the most part. Microbiology seems to waffle a bit between small and large molecules. Medical scale biology is decidedly in the "yes" category, what with individualized treatment and "no average person" problems. Social systems are like inverted microbiology, where at smaller scopes, the answer is "yes", but at huge scopes the answer becomes "no" again. I'm too ignorant of quantum theory to say, but it seems like decoherence implies it may waffle a bit too. The answer to that question *should* help me choose the paradigm(s) for the analogs I build. Until I have a competent way to emphatically ask the question, though, my pluralism facilitates agile analogies. I argue for multi-models ... integrationist analogs that facilitate the composition of different models of computation. Reliance on any one computational paradigm *before* having a competent estimate for the analog's requirements is dangerous. I guess it doesn't much matter how pure Rust is. It seems well situated for integrationism, which is the only reason I haven't given my friend an answer, yet. If I do "join", I'll probably do it as 1099 for now so I can treat him like a client instead of a boss. On 9/22/20 7:32 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I think linear/affine types as in Rust are cool. For one thing, they seem plausible for physical analogues to computation, like your infinitely-long expressions. In a biochemical system it often wouldn't make sense to `share' a variable across several expressions. A `physical' function would consume its inputs. Similarly linear types are like the no-cloning theorem for quantum states. It's a small change for a person used to writing functional programs to get in the habit of using linear types. Similar to Swarm's notion of switching phases, but where the switching of the method sets is understood by the compiler and can be enforced. Even besides the physical intuition, linear types provide a low-overhead way to manage memory, like is the norm for complex stack-allocated objects in C++. -- glen ep ropella 971-599-3737 - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Thanks! I will check these out. Intuitively, I can imagine how working with
monoidal categories could bring software closer to physics. Much of the QFT and QM work that has crossed my desk recently seems to be developed in that frame. -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by glen ep ropella
I think that I agree with you, and add that "particularity not mattering" in
a model is a modding-out of the thing modeled. I can imagine chains of quotients describing coarser and coarser models, agents to ODEs to networks of weighted edges, say. Comparisons then of things modeled induce comparisons across chains, maybe with some exactness or torsion criteria for measuring degrees of satisfaction. -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
I don't really know where the topic ended up re: Sapir-Whorf vs. McWhorter. But it dovetails nicely with this sub-thread. As a reminder, here is the last post on the Sapir-Whorf vs. McWhorter sub-thread: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ethnography-and-information-systems-tp519925p7598205.html wherein Dave accuses McWhorter of strawmanning Sapir-Whorf.
I know I *should* do my homework and read up on Sapir-Whorf and McWhorter's objection to it. But I'd like to simply bookmark what I think now so that I can double back and be embarrassed later. To me a language, including programming languages, don't control or channel "thought" in any way. But the scare quotes are there on purpose. Performative language, like any action, *does* feed back onto thought. And the feedback loop is critical. It doesn't happen inside one's head. It happens when you *express* in a language. So if you imagine a "mind" that has never said a single word, expresses a thought in some language. They either hear/see themselves doing the expressing or they don't. If they do, then that hearing/seeing modifies their "mind". If they express the thought again in the same language, they may (or may not) do it differently. Again, that modifies their "mind". Etc. It seems obvious that, over time, the framework of the expression(s) influences the machine doing the expressing. Of course, there are different types of thinkers. I'm mostly algebraic. But I've known lots of people way smarter than me who are visual thinkers. A visual person expressing in text may be like the above novel expressor not hearing/seeing themselves doing the expression. And an algebraic person expressing visually may not hear/see their expression. So, a machine's performative expressions may have more or less feedback, again depending on the language, the framework in which the expression is made. This is the heart of the argument I make to my clients. I don't argue that, e.g., physics-based modelers can only think in differential equations (DEs). I make the argument that if you *start* with a language that's limited to, or optimized for DEs, then each *iteration* of *that* model will be more DE-like. It will become difficult to generalize that model into something non-DE ... which provides a fulcrum for criticism of *some* hybrid cyber-physical systems, BTW. On 9/23/20 9:22 AM, jon zingale wrote: > I think that I agree with you, and add that "particularity not mattering" in > a model is a modding-out of the thing modeled. I can imagine chains of > quotients describing coarser and coarser models, agents to ODEs to networks > of weighted edges, say. Comparisons, then of things modeled inducing > comparisons across chains, maybe with some exactness or torsion criteria for > measuring degrees of satisfaction. > > On 9/23/20 8:21 AM, glen ep ropella wrote: >> A common problem I have when arguing that "mechanistic models" are qualitatively different from "descriptive models" is describing what it is about "mechanism" that's being modeled. I see it as a spectrum. Compartment models provide a good example. Some ODE contains a term that homogenizes all the stuff that happens inside cells versus, say, the intercellular matrix. Because there are 2 compartments, identifiable by terms in the equations, you can say it's "mechanistic" ... funging a bit on the "-istic" suffix. If I make some claim like: "Any one cell might behave differently from any other cell based on its history", then we could create another compartment, cells of type 1 and type 2. We can do that progressively until there's a compartment for each particular cell (and each particular extra-cellular space engineered by the actions of the cell). >> >> In this sense, FP is similar to OOP in its particularity, and they contrast with homogenizing paradigms like systems dynamics models. What I'd *like* to do is find a way to emphatically ask my clients: "Does particularity matter?" Chemistry seems to say "no" for the most part. Microbiology seems to waffle a bit between small and large molecules. Medical scale biology is decidedly in the "yes" category, what with individualized treatment and "no average person" problems. Social systems are like inverted microbiology, where at smaller scopes, the answer is "yes", but at huge scopes the answer becomes "no" again. I'm too ignorant of quantum theory to say, but it seems like decoherence implies it may waffle a bit too. >> >> The answer to that question *should* help me choose the paradigm(s) for the analogs I build. Until I have a competent way to emphatically ask the question, though, my pluralism facilitates agile analogies. I argue for multi-models ... integrationist analogs that facilitate the composition of different models of computation. Reliance on any one computational paradigm *before* having a competent estimate for the analog's requirements is dangerous. >> >> I guess it doesn't much matter how pure Rust is. It seems well situated for integrationism, which is the only reason I haven't given my friend an answer, yet. If I do "join", I'll probably do it as 1099 for now so I can treat him like a client instead of a boss. >> >> >> On 9/22/20 7:32 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>> I think linear/affine types as in Rust are cool. For one thing, they seem plausible for physical analogues to computation, like your infinitely-long expressions. In a biochemical system it often wouldn't make sense to `share' a variable across several expressions. A `physical' function would consume its inputs. Similarly linear types are like the no-cloning theorem for quantum states. It's a small change for a person used to writing functional programs to get in the habit of using linear types. Similar to Swarm's notion of switching phases, but where the switching of the method sets is understood by the compiler and can be enforced. Even besides the physical intuition, linear types provide a low-overhead way to manage memory, like is the norm for complex stack-allocated objects in C++. >> -- glen ep ropella 971-599-3737 - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: hot time in town tonight
|
|
Hmm. Here's how I solve a problem: I stare at the ceiling or sit in the yard. Maybe I walk the dog. Once I kind of can see how it comes together, I start to write it down as a program. The encoding is a way to become aware of the loose ends I failed to anticipate. If it can't make it type check and can run tests in isolation, then I have some confidence basically sound and I can go back to blue sky thinking. Literacy is very important not to guide imagination but to quickly bolt it down and to bring things into (and out of) focus. Like a blackboard that won't tolerate mistakes being written on it. The preference for a modeling/programming language is mostly what works best to grasp how information can be transformed. Theorems for free, per a slogan in the FP community. I want to offload as much of the consistency checking to the computer as I can.
-----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of glen ep ropella Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 10:23 AM To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] hot time in town tonight I don't really know where the topic ended up re: Sapir-Whorf vs. McWhorter. But it dovetails nicely with this sub-thread. As a reminder, here is the last post on the Sapir-Whorf vs. McWhorter sub-thread: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ethnography-and-information-systems-tp519925p7598205.html wherein Dave accuses McWhorter of strawmanning Sapir-Whorf. I know I *should* do my homework and read up on Sapir-Whorf and McWhorter's objection to it. But I'd like to simply bookmark what I think now so that I can double back and be embarrassed later. To me a language, including programming languages, don't control or channel "thought" in any way. But the scare quotes are there on purpose. Performative language, like any action, *does* feed back onto thought. And the feedback loop is critical. It doesn't happen inside one's head. It happens when you *express* in a language. So if you imagine a "mind" that has never said a single word, expresses a thought in some language. They either hear/see themselves doing the expressing or they don't. If they do, then that hearing/seeing modifies their "mind". If they express the thought again in the same language, they may (or may not) do it differently. Again, that modifies their "mind". Etc. It seems obvious that, over time, the framework of the expression(s) influences the machine doing the expressing. Of course, there are different types of thinkers. I'm mostly algebraic. But I've known lots of people way smarter than me who are visual thinkers. A visual person expressing in text may be like the above novel expressor not hearing/seeing themselves doing the expression. And an algebraic person expressing visually may not hear/see their expression. So, a machine's performative expressions may have more or less feedback, again depending on the language, the framework in which the expression is made. This is the heart of the argument I make to my clients. I don't argue that, e.g., physics-based modelers can only think in differential equations (DEs). I make the argument that if you *start* with a language that's limited to, or optimized for DEs, then each *iteration* of *that* model will be more DE-like. It will become difficult to generalize that model into something non-DE ... which provides a fulcrum for criticism of *some* hybrid cyber-physical systems, BTW. On 9/23/20 9:22 AM, jon zingale wrote: > I think that I agree with you, and add that "particularity not > mattering" in a model is a modding-out of the thing modeled. I can > imagine chains of quotients describing coarser and coarser models, > agents to ODEs to networks of weighted edges, say. Comparisons, then > of things modeled inducing comparisons across chains, maybe with some > exactness or torsion criteria for measuring degrees of satisfaction. > > On 9/23/20 8:21 AM, glen ep ropella wrote: >> A common problem I have when arguing that "mechanistic models" are qualitatively different from "descriptive models" is describing what it is about "mechanism" that's being modeled. I see it as a spectrum. Compartment models provide a good example. Some ODE contains a term that homogenizes all the stuff that happens inside cells versus, say, the intercellular matrix. Because there are 2 compartments, identifiable by terms in the equations, you can say it's "mechanistic" ... funging a bit on the "-istic" suffix. If I make some claim like: "Any one cell might behave differently from any other cell based on its history", then we could create another compartment, cells of type 1 and type 2. We can do that progressively until there's a compartment for each particular cell (and each particular extra-cellular space engineered by the actions of the cell). >> >> In this sense, FP is similar to OOP in its particularity, and they contrast with homogenizing paradigms like systems dynamics models. What I'd *like* to do is find a way to emphatically ask my clients: "Does particularity matter?" Chemistry seems to say "no" for the most part. Microbiology seems to waffle a bit between small and large molecules. Medical scale biology is decidedly in the "yes" category, what with individualized treatment and "no average person" problems. Social systems are like inverted microbiology, where at smaller scopes, the answer is "yes", but at huge scopes the answer becomes "no" again. I'm too ignorant of quantum theory to say, but it seems like decoherence implies it may waffle a bit too. >> >> The answer to that question *should* help me choose the paradigm(s) for the analogs I build. Until I have a competent way to emphatically ask the question, though, my pluralism facilitates agile analogies. I argue for multi-models ... integrationist analogs that facilitate the composition of different models of computation. Reliance on any one computational paradigm *before* having a competent estimate for the analog's requirements is dangerous. >> >> I guess it doesn't much matter how pure Rust is. It seems well situated for integrationism, which is the only reason I haven't given my friend an answer, yet. If I do "join", I'll probably do it as 1099 for now so I can treat him like a client instead of a boss. >> >> >> On 9/22/20 7:32 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>> I think linear/affine types as in Rust are cool. For one thing, they seem plausible for physical analogues to computation, like your infinitely-long expressions. In a biochemical system it often wouldn't make sense to `share' a variable across several expressions. A `physical' function would consume its inputs. Similarly linear types are like the no-cloning theorem for quantum states. It's a small change for a person used to writing functional programs to get in the habit of using linear types. Similar to Swarm's notion of switching phases, but where the switching of the method sets is understood by the compiler and can be enforced. Even besides the physical intuition, linear types provide a low-overhead way to manage memory, like is the norm for complex stack-allocated objects in C++. >> -- glen ep ropella 971-599-3737 - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
Marcus, I am reminded of an essay that spoke to the ancient technology that opened the door to those that came after, the alphabet. When we became "literate", people of the book, we became separated from our natural animistic tendencies and stopped having a conversation with trees and rivers, and stones, storms. Important information was not only transformed, but displaced--and here we are today. On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 4:36 PM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote: Hmm. Here's how I solve a problem: I stare at the ceiling or sit in the yard. Maybe I walk the dog. Once I kind of can see how it comes together, I start to write it down as a program. The encoding is a way to become aware of the loose ends I failed to anticipate. If it can't make it type check and can run tests in isolation, then I have some confidence basically sound and I can go back to blue sky thinking. Literacy is very important not to guide imagination but to quickly bolt it down and to bring things into (and out of) focus. Like a blackboard that won't tolerate mistakes being written on it. The preference for a modeling/programming language is mostly what works best to grasp how information can be transformed. Theorems for free, per a slogan in the FP community. I want to offload as much of the consistency checking to the computer as I can. Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA mobile: (303) 859-5609 skype: merle.lelfkoff2 twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Mmm. I very much relate to your process. To add to the list:
1. A strenuous mountain hike followed immediately by meditation and then contemplation. 2. Organizing my thoughts into words and posting them to this list. Generally engaging those whose thoughts and modes of thinking I cherish. 3. Memorizing a few details that I don't quite comprehend, details I will be able to recall, and then sitting with these details over a long sauna/cold plunge session. 4. Preparing my mind via an adjacent practice: working through the details of a perspective drawing, engaging in color composition, writing functions that spew numbers down along a terminal window... -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |