Stephen P. King (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Wed, 17 Mar 1999 09:33:46 -0500
Here I go again! :)
Robert Fung wrote:
> Dear Hitoshi and Stephen:
> Please post to the time listr for me if you like.
> These sound alot like LS's in a different context.
> Search key used: non-spatial filter
> Search engine: Yahoo
> "One of the long standing aims of science has been to impose
> a rational, internally consistent, framework upon 'nature'.":
"What should a characterisation of landscape attempt to achieve?" ?
The answer to this question touches on the nature of scientific method.
Is it possible to identify an objective reality, that of the 'true'
landscape ? *If we assume the answer to this question is yes, then
characterisation becomes the process of identifying the optimal
categorisation of that reality.* However, the concept of 'landscape'
embodies a host of ideas, not simply physically determined by
geomorphological process, but culturally defined by its use and the
preconceptions of the observer. As a consequence, a framework for
objective testing of landscape characterisation is not possible without
a stricter definition of terms."
This quote and particularly the starred demonstrate one of my
points. The attept to define an "objective" perspective is equivalent to
defining a data set that is 'decodable" by an arbitrary language or
decoding stream ("string" for the binary special case). It is obvious
that such a data set would be pure noice, like on of Chiatin's normal or
regular sets (I forget the exact word :( )
[late breaking note: there is a strange relationship between the ratio
of the surface area A and the volume V of an n-dimensional manifold
(using that terms loosely! :)) and its dimensionality; as n -> oo, A/V
-> 1/0 or oo and thus the number of possible neighboors of a given LS
increases as its dimensionality increases, I believe that the "strange"
QM properties of LS can be looked at from this paradigm... I am also
rereading Ian Stewart's From Here to Infinity, his discussion of NP=/= P
and its "provability" is very relevant to our discussion. I hope to
write up a note soon on this.]
> "One of the best ways to comprehend a large complicated
> information structure is to form multiple simpler structures
> each highlighting different aspects of the original structure."
"Our work is based on the assumption that many individual object-systems
with simple behavior form a whole object-system with complex behavior.
For example, a map series is a complex object-system composed from
many maps. A map in its turn is also composed of many elements. It is
also assumed that the organization of
the individual objects is hierarchical; the complex object being on top
of the hierarchy. This assumption can be found in diverse fields such as
systems theory ..."
This is one of the reasons that I am interested in p-adic
ultrametric spaces... They have hierarchical structures built in!
> Hypermaps: spatial and non-spatial information
"A hypermap, then, can be described as geo-referenced approach
hypermedia. The hypermap is based on hypertext and hyperdocument
principles. Hypertext refers to a set of nodes connected by links that
offer the user a non-sequential tour around the data. The nodes are
abstractions of text or graphics and can be considered as equivalent to
objects in an object-oriented data environment."
Here we can reevaluate Peter Wegner's ideas using this! We are
ever so closer to where the matter-time/data-logic duality is obvious
for all to see! Infomorphism: A "causes" B iff B "implies" A, sounds
easy, we need to deal with: A "causes" B and C and D and ... iff B and C
and D and ... "implies" A. Then we see that finite constraints limit the
number of effects A can "cause" and dually, how may data points imply
> "It has been shown that a listenerís ability to focus on one of two competing messages is dramatically >enhanced by either dichotic or spatial audio. In addition, as two messages become closer in space, it becomes >more difficult for a listener to focus on one of the messages":
Interesting! Here the mutual information entropy (if that is the
term) of the messages act to converge the appearent spatial positions.
This has clear implications for how to think about how LSs interact to
construct a local cosmos. We do need to look at this issue more
carefully, I think that most of our "experimental" falsifiability will
come from it! :)
> [That sounds like the twin-slit experiement to me.]
Yes, from conversations with my friend Paul Hanna who is a bit
of an SR
expert, there is a possible duality between the finite limits on the
number of QM particles in any given LS and the number of "classical"
centers of mass that have nontrivial casual connections amoung them...
Matti's ideas seem to speak directly to this! (cf. message (time 23)...)
> Search key: "non-spatial"
> Search engine: yahoo
> Development of ProART in ART*Enterprise:
> [note in this link, besides the concepts that we usually address, there
> is also the idea of "interactive and passive" which we have been
> calling "adaptive" and "spatial" or "dynamic" vs. "static" respectively.
> http://intell-lab.engi.cf.ac.uk/Rossi/Rossi_home.htm ]
This looks like your dualities list! :)
> Moving beyond the map as metaphor:representation and multiple realities
> "There are consequences and problems that arise from the
> exclusion of alternative forms of knowledge, ways of knowing,
> and representation. Historically, there is evidence of broader
> and richer ways of knowing in both western and non-western societies.":
I am soooo happy that others are beginning to warm the the
of "multiple realities!" Without this basic understanding LS theory is
"Three Dimensional Simulation of Accommodation"
Umm, sounds like adaptive collision avoidance! Yet, another example of
how LSs "create" space-times by their acts of "adaptation" to each other
because of their endless "conversations!"
> Uncertainty Issues of Conflation in a Distributed Environment
> "Typically we found that potential matching features do not have identical
> non-spatial attributes and so we needed to generate a degree of matching.
> Similarity tables were developed for the VPF allowed term sets and these
> were used in conjunction with a fuzzy combination function providing the
> degree of matching of the features to be possibly be conflated.":
"conflation": like competition + inflation... ;) There we have
"version" of ideas like Kosko's subsethood theorem!
> etc. etc.
> It's too bad, that last year Edwin T. Jaynes died.
> Now all those who would not give up their influence to him,
> like vultures reap his work on entropy and gather up its
> power unto themselves.
I have come to accept this as "Par for the Course." It is far easier to
steal than create... Remeber that we will always live in a competitive
Robert Fung wrote:
> Search Key: spatial filter
> Search Engine: yahoo
> "The result is that users are shielded from viewing discontinuities within their virtual worlds.":
Much like we are blind to our "blind spots!" ;) This, to me,
how the cosmoses and LS [forgive me Hitoshi and Matti for putting words
in your mouths! This is an example of Pratt's ideas! :)] are "logically
closed" to themselves. A <<cosmos>> is a maximally consistent set of
space-time events that can be ordered chronologically *and*
concurrently. It creates a light-cone structure by the interactions of
LS centers of mass, but it does so in a interactive/adaptive
> Applications of Geographic Information Science to
> Identify and Evaluate Areas of High Infant Mortality:
> [contains some interesting slides showing how spatial filtering is done on maps.
My internet connection is experiencing a lousy signal to noise
right now! :( Got it! :) Umm, looks like the Venn diagram version of my
thought picture about how the spatial information of "neighboring" LSs
overlaps and underlaps to generate a cosmos! :)
> "Spatial" (frequency-domain) filtering is complementary to
> "adaptive" or time-domain filtering.
> "Adaptive" filtering is less commonly called "non-spatial" filtering.
Yes! WE need to understand how space has temporal aspect and
time has spatial aspects. Bohm, and a few others (like David
Finkelstein, M. Talbot, etc.) understand this within relativity, but we
need to look at the statistics feature involved with this, e.g
Maxwell-Boltzmann vs. Fermi-Dirac vs. Bose-Einstein.
> Search Key: adaptive filter
> Search Engine: altavista
"Adaptive tracking...", "Optimum nonlinear filtering", good. Doh! :)
> Search Key: adaptive optics
> Search Engine:
> ugh, lost my web connection....
Onward to the Unknown!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:29:45 JST