7/21/2015 is almost = 2/20/2019 ?! I’m always a little surprised when I’m researching and end up in the same places as I had long ago, despite taking wildly different paths to get there. Just now, I ended up on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsumption_architecture and saw reference to “SB-MASE is a subsumption-based multi-agent simulator.” which looked interesting. I downloaded it, only to find I ALREADY HAD a folder called SB-MASE” created on 7/21/2015! How did I end up in the same place? This time, I was looking up “Ontological landscapes: recent thought on conceptual interfaces between science and philosophy” by V Petrov, and saw it was in “Foresight” publication, which looked interesting, found an article called “Robert Rosen’s anticipatory systems”. Ooh, anticipatory systems! I like that. So, looked up Robert Rosen -> anticipatory systems -> Anticipation (AI) -> Reactive Planning -> Subsumption arthitecture to downloading the SAME THING I downloaded 1310 days ago (187 Weeks ago or 3 Years and 7 Months ago). Now I have to see how i got there LAST time, as I used to make notes on my own paths. But this is a long time for a path crossing – and oddly specific. (I’ve also been looking at self-avoiding walks lately and they model unique paths that don’t have loops)

7/21/2015 is almost =
[read full article]

You can also look into: http://scratch.mit.edu Scratch is visual programming. It uses the same concepts – it _is_ programming – but it uses visual blocks of code you snap together. It’s not just for kids either: There are in use visual programming languages like this.

You can also look [read full article]


For breaking down the logic of grammar and “attacking your problem” to find a possible weakness, I might turn to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_functional_grammar I read Michael Halliday’s “Introduction to Functional Grammar” last year. This will be a good test to see if I can find a solution by applying it. I suspect the difficulty lies in “missing words” that are implied in the self-referential structure but not stated. But with a reformulation of the sentence using grammatical rules of the language, the meaning can be retained and exposed and will result in a non-paradox.

For breaking down the [read full article]


We lack good metaphors for some of the quantum effects. But I think that’s because we learn it too late, long after we learn that integers are math. Oh, no, then there’s fractions. Oh no, then there’s percentages. Oh no, then there’s decimals. Oh no, then if we’re lucky we get to learn that integers are the EXCEPTION and are actually odd compared to all the amazing spaces inbetween a 3.00000 and a 4.00000. Hence, we can get stuck, say, on spin. Ok, there’s no great metaphor for spin YET. But raise a generation or two that accepts spin as everyday knowledge and they’ll find the metaphors to teach future students with that we can’t.

We lack good metaphors [read full article]