“Information (data) is the base unit. There can be nothing smaller than the base unit. Therefore, everything is made of the base unit.” But this can be a problem.

Well actually with theoretical physicists because they particularly deal with statistical methods rather than tangibles, are _especially_ drawn to information theory.

Consider where the shift happened from “energy is neither created nor destroyed” and became “information cannot be destroyed”? Theoretical physics.

Theoretical physics is precisely the source of the notion.

“Information (data) is the base unit. There can be nothing smaller than the base unit. Therefore, everything is made of the base unit.”

If you were to do something like, say, try to get “meta” with the information source and start talking about semantics and meaning, social constructs of knowledge and such, the ultimate _human_ basis for all of these systems, complete with all of the flaws that goes with that – well, there wouldn’t be any room for it in a system with information-as-base-unit.

That’s the issue with it ultimately.

That doesn’t invalidate its usefulness on a pragmatic level, but it does show where its limits are.

==

Oh you’re talking quantum information theory. I think in qubit computer logic, they’re primarily matrix transforms, which definitely gives them more flexibility than the standard binary.

==

I’d like to see work done on qutrits, but as we’ve barely bothered with ternary logic, I don’t see much benefit to jumping to qutrits ’til we’ve mastered ternary.

In a way, qubits are easier to work with than ternary logic because the probabilities allows some assertions of “trueness and falseness” and maintaining the ability to negotiate relative truth values that are interdependent quantities in an entangled state.

==

AH ok, the “This is the size of your brain” stuff. How many states are possible. Ok. How big is the checkerboard for us to move our pieces on.

I mean, that’s certainly useful stuff but it’s like a gigantic piece of paper. If I know how big my paper is and how wide my pencil tip is, it still won’t let me draw anything on it and really, pragmatically speaking, we can do more with less. Limits are useful but like an unplugged computer, doesn’t do much.

==

About two years ago, I did a big search for ternary chips in use. There’s some project, some practical things – and I remember a soviet computer that was ternary – probably that same one you’re talking about… but the closest things I’ve found to ternary logic chips are some analog computing tech that managed to survive (in chip form) because their functionality couldn’t be reproduced as well (or at all) in digital equivalents. But generally, there’s not much out there. I have some work on it saved somewhere… I really expected to see more.

==

Oh LISP machines … man they had such potential. I wanted to learn LISP too. The professor suggested I go through the proper steps (this is 1990) – start with Pascal and work up but I wanted to jump right into AI.

I took a course in Pascal but it was like, “eh, this is like Basic” and was kinda a waste of time, although I did write a few things in Turbo Pascal in the early 90’s and distributed on BBS’, so not a total loss.

The base pairings are interesting in the rule-sets they create. it’s hard _not to_ compare our gene sequences with some kind of computer code because the similarities are so profound.

==

My fascination with ternary logic though, is that it _can’t_ be mapped to binary. Aristotle’s Excluded Middle has to be included tongue emoticon Considering how influential his black + white thinking has been to, I dunno, ALL of Western Civilization, it’s no surprise that we have trouble thinking in such terms. The very development of our languages themselves have it built into it, the source of dichotomies, paradoxes and the like.

I’m not saying it’s a bad thing: So much has been accomplished with ONLY THIS NEVER THAT NOTHING INBETWEEN and variations of it but I know when we start being able to think in terms of variations of “I don’t knows” that aren’t necessarily tied into probabilities (which I see as kinda primitive: “On a scale of 0-100, how close is it to X?” – probability is linear at its root.

We can think in terms of “two at once” – the either/or… but once we can three distinctive somethings, things get wonky for us because we’ve never been trained in navigating relativities, uncertainties, unbalanced triads and such.

I found something somewhere about the logic used in the prefrontal cortex being ternary in nature.. which makes sense – and they’ve mapped the circuits (so to speak). I should find it. It was pretty fascinating to see them under magnification. and being traced out.

==

True, although then wouldn’t it require another level of processing for the “I don’t knows”, like a database or something?

==

Ah, see there’s the issue I have with the mapping of 3 — 2: The levels of complexity grows beyond the pure logic itself.

Other layers of abstraction are required.

To me, this points to a fundamental flaw in the usage of binary vs ternary: You can’t just feed ternary into binary and have a logic-machine (as it were) process it all to come up with definitive results. You need to add additional algorithms, user input, database abstractions, semantics, language: in short, the “Uncertain bit” seems to be everything that logic is not.

==

I suppose I seem to asking the impossible but I don’t think it is:

“SOLVE FOR X=”I DON’T KNOW”

==

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


− 4 = three

Leave a Reply