Been fascinated by it since I was a kid watching science shows and devouring library books. (I didn’t know who Hawking was as he didn’t write his book yet). Encyclopedias mostly. Later, rooted for Loop Quantum Gravity, was disappointed that String Theory took over for so long until M-Brane where I liked String Theory again. Now I’ve been back at discrete for a bit as first off, “quantum” is _COUNTING_ so – not continuous by definition – and recent work by DARPA on asymmetrical fraction and integer Quantum Hall effect materials really resurrected my interest, which never died really but now I can look forward to a new way to do computing, with memory and logic happening on the same chips, NO MORE LOST DATA… all coming soon. Real soon. I’m happy.

Been fascinated by it
[read full article]
 

It works for you. I don’t have a strong opinion about Best Organizational Structure For The Planet. My main thing is: Is basic human kindness and decency a critical component? Is it maximal in terms of life satisfaction potential (not necessarily happiness)? Are basic human rights core? Then however the corporation / corporations is/are organized – hierarchy, Federated, family units, clan, I’m ok with it.

It works for you. [read full article]

 

Hell 01070407n is semantically closest to The mind 02n Oaths 02080701n is semantically closest to Society 03n I love the classification used by the “Historic Thesaurus” as it is based upon semantic similarity. I’m analyzing it (using Excel of course) to find which categories are FURTHEST AWAY from their PARENT category and CLOSEST TO the next PARENT category.

Hell 01070407n is semantically … [read full article]

 

“…the phenomenological world has no structure itself, but we assign structural descriptions to the phenomenological world by means of categories….” Oh yes. 2nd order! Man, I love this thesis. Diego Gabriel Krivochen, I don’t know if you’re right, but you’re hitting all the ways I think so far and that’s rare. “Internalism: This is one of the crucial parts of our proposal. As a radical departure from (often tacit, but) widely held assumptions in cognitive science, we will argue that the phenomenological world has no structure itself, but we assign structural descriptions to the phenomenological world by means of categories like sortal and eventive entities, where the latter can be defined in terms of relations among the former. We defend the idea that interpretation is grammar assignment (as opposed to recognition), in the sense in which we defined it above. This claim has relevant consequences for cognitive science in general, but we will focus on the linguistic implications of adopting such a view. The immediate consequence is that no linguistic object has a structure, that is, there is no structural description associated with a string before that string is interpreted. “

“…the phenomenological world has
[read full article]
 

“Field theory is introduced, and its applicability to neurocognitive phenomena is made explicit, with all due scale considerations. Physical and mathematical concepts are permanently interacting as we analyze phrase structure in terms of pseudo-fractals (in Mandelbrot’s sense) and define syntax as a (possibly unary) set of topological operations over completely Hausdorff (CH) ultrametric spaces. ” I’m such a nerd. Back at that Thesis and I’m still at the Introduction.

“Field theory is introduced,

[read full article]