The flaw that I see in common in many of these philosophical arguments over this topic is this: You assume the only acceptable answer is universal. I can work with that flaw and say: the only acceptable answer is that it is arbitrary and often practical for humans and other creatures and non-intelligent entities to behave “as if” they are themselves objects which interact with what they treat “as if also” objects. Objects with gaps inbetween them.

The flaw that I [read full article]


I keep jumping around from past to present. I must be narrowing something down but I’m not sure what yet. “O’Hearn and Brookes are co-recipients of the 2016 Gödel Prize for their invention of Concurrent Separation Logic.” Just read: “Specifying and Verifying Concurrent Algorithms with Histories and Subjectivity”, which uses the simple but fantastic notion of logical verification with TIMESTAMPS – AND using TWO histories simultaneously: SUBJECTIVE and Objective, allowing for things like dealing with programs that operate across networks, running concurrently, functions shared by the state space – even situations where it can decide not to do something if it was done by another program or by the state space itself. It’s part of – in this case, Concurrent Separation Logic. Why do I like this? If you abstract it’s function (take it out of the context of computer science), it’s logical reasoning that has PLACE and TIME and SUBJECTIVITY and multiple HISTORIES, features missing from many logics. Doing this gives the power to consider reasoning from TWO perspectives simultaneously: COARSE (objective, collective, hindsight) and FINE-GRAINED (subjective, individual, interactive, broken up).

I keep jumping around
[read full article]