Nothing wrong with learning some of his stuff. I mean, he *did* put all this work into it, and maybe it’ll spark some new ideas for your own language. I mean he’s been working on this stuff since the late 80s if I remember right…
Of course maybe it would taint your own language – but I don’t know what your purism-level is with that.
He’s a smart dude. I remember I found _something_ about his cellular automata that was missing… some fundamental ‘something’ I noticed a few years ago… but can’t remember what it was at the moment. I very nearly became a devotee and then I spotted what was missing and got the usual feeling I get when I can’t COMPLETELY worship someone. [I keep looking though. I’ve only found a few that I can practically worship in any field. George Lakoff is one in his stuff on metaphors as it meshes perfectly with my way of thinking. But in computational stuff, I always end up finding a flaw or two. Doesn’t invalidate their ideas by any means: it just means they’re REALLY good for what they’re good for but now I know their limitations.
Yeah – he definitely stepped on a lot of toes there. Nobody wants to be told, “Hey, that thing you’re doing? Yeah, you’re all doing it wrong” and when you come up with an amazing discovery, it ‘feels like’ you’ve just discovered a thing that applies to everything.
I have to watch out for that trap. I’ve come close a few times myself.
t nice! I’m currently working my way through Godel Escher Bach (finally after *not* reading it for a lot of years) – but when I saw your experiment it reminded me of some stuff I did using Processing a couple of years ago…. and this was one of ‘those times’ in my life where I came _really close_ to becoming “that guy” who has the “THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING!” idea and ends up taking over his existence.
Not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with people doing that per se… I just knew I needed to step back after a period of time getting myself *completely* wrapped up in this idea.
I figure if it’s really a good idea, it’ll still be a good idea when I get back to it again.
It’s a great name I’ve wanted to use it for something forever. I’m not likely to pursue the “leaky triangle” notion again for a while, as I put it on the back burner to “do its thing” in the background of my mind…
but here’s another time I talked about system of systems: Dec 11, 2001 on Usenet: I was REALLY really annoyed that i couldn’t find a word for what would be a system of systems at the time.
In retrospect, I think what I was looking for back in 2001 was probably “ontology”.
I slapped together that page haphazardly, just as a ‘public notebook” of ideas as I came across them.
I was surprised, looking at the dates, that almost all of my work on it was a very short period of time: Two weeks in July, 2014, with an update a few months later.
I was definitely ‘on fire’ with it.
I love Eureka moments tbh. I live for them. As more and more things ‘come together’ for me, I get less and less of them but in return I find myself feeling more “solid footing” as to my outlook on the world.
Hopefully I get through it. I suspect, since GEB has had a strong impact on the very worlds that have always interested me (AI, computational science, algorithms, topology, self-referential logic, paradoxes, programming), I _might_ find it a little less “a-ha!” than I might have had I taken that course when I was 18 on it.
But maybe not: I was surprised to get a couple of nice “a-has” from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, and hopefully I’ll get plenty here.
I might’ve also been having one of those moments where you realize “the thing that contains contains itself yet can still be contained by something else” problem.
I mean when you think about it, a system of systems, is still just another system. The fact that this system contains other systems, means that that system could, itself contain itself in the system, running you into one of those snake-eating is own tail situations. I was glad to find out this is a problem in set theory as well.
[they just basically rest all of set theory on an initial paradox and then ignore it after that].
But now I can see that can all fall under a category of ontology and actually categories in general can fall into that. But then you end up going back to math again (eventually) and end up back at the paradox at the start of set theory [first axiom].
So, then go back to logic. But what’s flawed about logic? Besides being created by humans, you have a fundamental problem that all axiom/proof things have.
So what’s beyond axiom /proof systems?
Rhetoric [original usage not the modern usage where they make fun of rhetoric].
and one could go from there. [I ended up with truths are a subset of fiction but it could really become mythology-as-starting-point ’cause it’s all narrative].
lol how’d I get here?
[ie – I may have absorbed a lot of the knowledge already BECAUSE others I’ve learned from have already read it]
It’s one of the reasons why I scoff a little at the idea of purity by “going to the source text” : If one is investigating already known ideas that arose BECAUSE of the source text, the reader is ALREADY “in on the joke” as it were, and can’t read it with an objective mind.
I think focault went into this somewhere I only know most of his stuff second hand as well.