Sunday, March 31, 2013

The Circle Computer

I was investigating G. Spencer-Brown's Laws of Form by implementing it in Python, and I found a very interesting interpretation in terms of the SK combinator calculus.

You can represent the "marks" of LoF as data-structures in Python composed entirely of tuples. For example:
  • A mark: ()
  • A mark next to a mark: (), ()
  • A mark within a mark: ((),)
  • and so on...


It is known that the propositional calculus can be represented by the "arithmetic of the mark". The two rules suffice:

((),) == nothing
() == (), ()

There are details, but essentially math and logic can be derived from the behaviour of "the mark".


After reading "Every Bit Counts" I spent some time trying to come up with an EBC coding for the circle language (Laws of Form expressed as tuples, See Burnett-Stuart's "The Markable Mark")

With a little skull-sweat I found the following encoding:

  1. For the empty state (no mark) write '0'.
  2. Start at the left, if you encounter a boundary (one "side" of a mark, or  the left, opening, parenthesis) write a '1'.
  3. Repeat for the contents of the mark, then the neighbors.

     _ = 0
    () = 100
(), () = 10100
 ((),) = 11000
and so on...


I recognized these numbers as the patterns of the language called 'Iota'.

Briefly, the SK combinators:

S = λx.λy.λz.xz(yz)
K = λx.λy.x

Or, in Python:

S = lambda x: lambda y: lambda z: x(z)(y(z))
K = lambda x: lambda y: x

can be used to define the combinator used to implement Iota:

i = λc.cSK

or,

i = lambda c: c(S)(K)


And the bitstrings are decoded like so: if you encounter '0' return i, otherwise decode two terms and apply the first to the second.

In other words, the empty space, or '0', corresponds to i:

_ = 0 = i

and the mark () corresponds to i applied to itself:

() = 100 = i(i)

which is an Identity function I.

The S and K combinators can be "recovered" by application of i to itself like so (this is Python code, note that I am able to use 'is' instead of the weaker '==' operator. The i combinator is actually recovering the very same lambda functions used to create it.  Neat, eh?):

K is i(i(i(i))) is decode('1010100')
S is i(i(i(i(i)))) is decode('101010100')

Where decode is defined (in Python) as:

decode = lambda path: _decode(path)[0]

def _decode(path):
  bit, path = path[0], path[1:]
  if bit == '0':
    return i, path
  A, path = _decode(path)
  B, path = _decode(path)
  return A(B), path


(I should note that there is an interesting possibility of encoding the tuples two ways: contents before neighbors (depth-first) or neighbors before content (breadth-first). Here we look at the former.)

So, in "Laws of Form" K is ()()() and S is ()()()() and, amusingly, the identity function I is ().

The term '(())foo' applies the identity function to foo, which matches the behaviour of the (()) form in the Circle Arithmetic (()) == _ ("nothing".)

(())A =  i(i)(A) = I(A) = A


I just discovered this (that the Laws of Form have a direct mapping to the combinator calculus by means of λc.cSK) and I haven't found anyone else mentioning yet (although this article might, I haven't worked my way all the way through it yet.)

There are many interesting avenues to explore from here, and I personally am just beginning, but this seems like something worth reporting.

Saturday, March 16, 2013

Lord Kelvin's Thunderstorm

One of my very favorite mechanisms is the wonderful device of Lord Kelvin for separating electric charge. It is the second simplest electric generator (the simplest electric generator is the hydroelectrostatic generator described by Gurdjieff in "All and Everything" constructed in a cave in the middle of nowhere and otherwise unknown to science) and a cybernetic system to boot.

Lord Kelvin's Thunderstorm consist of a means for splitting a flow of water into two stream of droplets and arranging each stream so as to fall each into a separate bucket.

Conductors are lead from each bucket to the vicinity of the emitting nozzle of the opposite stream of droplets.

That is all.

Operation is simple:
  1. As the droplets flow they carry electric charge from the upper water to the separate buckets.
  2. There will be a tiny imbalance in the electrical charge of the two buckets.
  3. The conductor from one bucket will conduct the charge from that bucket to the nozzle feeding the opposite bucket, and vice-versa.
  4. This charge near the nozzle will attract the opposite charge in the nozzle, and thus in the droplets carrying charge to the bucket below it, and vice-versa.
  5. When these charged drops fall into the buckets they increase the charge in the buckets and the strength of the charge near the nozzles and thus the charge on the droplets that they then carry to the buckets.
A feedback loop is established that rapidly divides the charge on the water into positive and negative, uh, charge.

There are lots of videos on the Internet if you want to see this in action. It's pretty dramatic.

I wonder what would happen if you hooked up three dropper-and-bucket arrangements?  Wouldn't that be neat if there was some undiscovered "triune force"?

Thursday, March 14, 2013

The General Program, Part ()

A fellow named G. Spencer-Brown wrote a book called "The Laws of Form". In it he begins with the most fundamental, indeed metaphysical, logical "step" or "unit": the act of distinguishing ...

(Quite literally the first page of "Laws of Form" and the first verse of the "Tao Te Ching" are expressing the same thing.)

From there he goes on to derive all of logic and mathematics. He uses a simple formalism of "marks" that captures the behaviour of logic and equations.

Then, in "The Markable Mark", a fellow named G. Burnett-Stuart has created an interactive circle-based rendering of the "Logic of the "Mark" and illustrated the build up of higher-order systems of reasoning rigorously from that basis.

Check them out, they're very cool. (I'm working on a system that uses them as a basis for reasoning programs.)

Thursday, February 21, 2013

No Computers, No Money, No Cars

In "the future" there are no computers, no money, and no cars.

I wrote that to stimulate ideas about what "post-Singularity" life might be like.  We have some ideas about "Singularity" life, here's one example: an "Open Source Film Project"called "Heart of the Sun". The essential silliness of so much of this sort of techno-fetish fantasy stems from the lack of examination and comprehension of what one's "self" is.

Without going too far into it our "self" is that awareness of being at the core of us. We are that awareness, and everything else are only contents of our awareness.

It is typical to identify with our bodies, our emotions, our beliefs, our values, etc., and say, "I am..." to these contents.  But it can be easily shown that all of these contents, while having a temporary contingent existence, are impermanent and subject to eventual change and destruction.

(To get ahead of myself for a moment, this gives us the ultimate counter to trans-humanist fantasies: "And then what?")

We are awareness. All other phenomenon are contents of our awareness, including the entire physical Universe.

Now it doesn't matter what the contents are. You can be a starving homeless wastrel or a transhuman superbeing frolicking in the corona of the Sun, but if you haven't pierced the essential blindness of your condition you are just as trapped no matter what.

There is a direction which no one can point to, that leads to the place beyond places.

To arrive there is to pass beyond death and life, to remember yourself and return home.

(And there ain't any damn computers, nor money, nor cars there!)

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Transrationality

What do I mean by the term "trans-rational"?


We all know what "rationality" is, or think we do, but for concreteness here is the (current as of this writing) first paragraph from the Wikipedia article:
In philosophy, rationality is the characteristic of any action, belief, or desire, that makes their choice optimal under a set of constraints. It is a normative concept of reasoning in the sense that rational people should derive conclusions in a consistent way given the information at disposal. It refers to the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe, or with one's actions with one's reasons for action. However, the term "rationality" tends to be used differently in different disciplines, including specialized discussions of economics, sociology, psychology, evolutionary biology and political science. A rational decision is one that is not just reasoned, but is also optimal for achieving a goal or solving a problem.

A little further on it mentions that the "idealized form of rationality is best exemplified by computers".

But what if your goal or problem is already solved? What is the rational course of action in the absence of unsolved problems?

Friday, February 15, 2013

Post-Singularity? Really?

Yes, post-Singularity. Let me explain. Look at the following graphs (from the Wikipedia.)
Look at these graphs. They are "bell curves".  Many kinds of properties of things occur in distributions that look like this when they are graphed like this.

The green line is an exponential curve. (Ignore the red and blue lines, they are just hanging out, they're not part of this story.)
Now look at these graphs.  They are called (sometimes) "S-curves" because they look a little bit like the letter "S".

So what is the point? Why am I showing these to you?

Okay, first the "Singularity", as it's called, is the idea that our technology will exponentially accelerate and result in super-intelligent beings and radical technological "powers" (like living forever with super-medicine, etc.)

Most people who think or talk about this act like it's following the green line in the middle graph: accelerating ever faster towards infinity.

The more intelligent or thoughtful realize that we are actually in an "S-Curve" sort of a situation.  Right now we are moving from one flat bit to the next flat bit, and we're in the exciting and scary up-and-down bit just at the moment.

Now the interesting thing that I'm trying to bring to your attention is that not everyone is going through the up-and-down bit at the same rate nor at exactly the same time.

Some are going faster than others. And some have started earlier than others.

And some have started earlier and gone faster and arrived in the new flat bit ahead of the crowd.

Look at the "bell curves" in the first graph.  Imagine that a curve represented whatever quality it is, brains or smarts or whatever you like, that causes a person to begin to accelerate up that steep bit of the other curve, the "S-curve".

It only makes sense that some lucky bastards would arrive before everybody else, right?

Worth Knowing