**Stephen P. King** (*stephenk1@home.com*)

*Mon, 03 May 1999 06:32:10 -0400*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 270] Re: [time 266] Time and the Origin of Dimensions"**Previous message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 268] Re: [time 266] Time and the Origin of Dimensions"**In reply to:**Lester Zick: "[time 266] Time and the Origin of Dimensions"**Next in thread:**Ben Goertzel: "[time 273] Re: [time 269] Re: [Time 267] and [Time 83] and [Questions about Time and fuzzy hypersets]"

Dear Ben,

I am thinking of your last post: [time 267]

*>Primally, space and time are basically two kinds of ~separateness~.
*

*>Space is what allows two identical objects to coexist but be ~different~.
*

*>Time is what allows one object to be ~different from itself~ (because existing
*

*>at different times)
*

*>Space is the movement from X not= X to X=X
*

*>Time is the movement from X=X to X not= X
*

*>They are two directions of movement of the same paradox, X=X but X not= X
*

*>Indian logic distinguishes 4 truth values,
*

*>true, false, both true and false, neither true nor false
*

*>Similarly, we may say that any two entities are either
*

*>same, different, neither same nor different, both same and different
*

*>Space and time both allow entities to be both same and different
*

*>Space is the movement from difference to sameness; time is the movement from
*

*>sameness to difference
*

*>I suspect that this ontological observation can be used to deduce from
*

*>first philosophical principles the fact that time is measured using imaginary numbers whereas
*

*>space is measured using real numbers. But I don't have time to work this out right
*

*>now (good excuse, huh?)
*

How space and time are dynamical inverses is somewhat like a thought

that I have been mulling over for a long time! :) But I never thought of

it this way! ({X = ~X} -> (X = X}) <-> ({X = X} -> {X = ~X}) I think

that a infomorphism can be defined here! We just need to figure out the

classificatioons.

Peter, do you have any ideas? ;)

Re: [time 83] Re: [time 81] Entropy, wholeness, dialogue, algebras

Ben Goertzel wrote:

*> It is very different,if my recollection serves. Fuzzy set theory is not
*

*> the same as entropy or algorithmic information theory.
*

*>
*

*> It is based on the Min() and Max() operators which preserve distributivity
*

*> but are not at all psychologically realistic. My preference is for probabilistic
*

*> logic. So I agree that fuzziness is needed, but the min/max algebra on fuzzy
*

*> sets I have always steered away from in my AI work.
*

Could you explain your reasoning of why the Min() and Max() operators

of fuzzy logic are "not at all psychologically realistic"? This is

driving me nuts! ;)

Subject: Re: Questions about time and fuzzy hypersets

Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 16:23:24 -0500

From: "Ben Goertzel" <ben@goertzel.org>

To: "Stephen P. King" <stephenk1@home.com>

CC: "octonion@dialog.net \"octonion@dialog.net\""

<octonion@DIALOG.NET>,

"Hitoshi Kitada" <hitoshi@kitada.com>, "Robert Fung"

<ca314159@bestweb.net>

[SPK]

*>>Re: "Primal time is the result of resolution of contradictions."
*

*>> Are we thinking of "contradiction resolution" in terms of
*

*>>constructing/computing logical consistency chaining in information
*

*>>databases? Like constructing Markov chains or Hasse diagrams or word
*

*>>relation graphs. Umm, I am not sure what are the right words to use,
*

*>>that you would be familiar with.
*

*>I know about Markov chains, not Hasse diagrams. I am thinking more
*

*>in terms of Spencer-Brown's "Laws of Form", which is a great book that
*

*>you should read if you never have. It is written up on the Web in several
*

*>places.
*

*>The basic contradiction "this sentence is false" unravels itself
*

*>as True, false, true, false,... ad infinitum
*

*>presto- time!
*

I am beginning to understand this line of thinking! :) But, as above, I

still see B. Kosko's formalism as the best. Perhaps it is his use of

"sets as points in hypercubes" that biases me, since I think in

pictures. But Kosko does not seem to think of the vicious loop of the

contradiction as a dynamical flow... :( I, as you, do! I think that the

"streams" that Peter uses -which are hypersets- lend themselves readily

to thinking about this! I am thinking of stream as time flows, plural,

in the sense that each is a different ordering of events.

On a related note: What relation do you see between ensembles and

time-trials? I see ensembles S as "space-like" (Minkowskian sense)

distributions that can be identified -tentatively- to R^N : n >/= 2 and

time-trials T as "time-like" (ditto) distributions identified to R^1.

Pictorially, we can think of S as a hypersurface with T orthogonal, if

we identify a common point and order T with ">/=" (greater or equal to)

points and order S ">/=" concentric spheres R^N-1. I believe that this

reduces to a classic light-cone structure if we introduce the

appropriate metric...

Since we observe time as "flowing", I conjecture that this is so because

of the stream like nature of orderings, but given that the computation

of least action / greatest extrema is an NP Complete problem

computationally, this flow is not a priori but is contracted by an

ongoing interactional computation among LSs. This make sense? ;)

Onward!

Stephen

**Next message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 270] Re: [time 266] Time and the Origin of Dimensions"**Previous message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 268] Re: [time 266] Time and the Origin of Dimensions"**In reply to:**Lester Zick: "[time 266] Time and the Origin of Dimensions"**Next in thread:**Ben Goertzel: "[time 273] Re: [time 269] Re: [Time 267] and [Time 83] and [Questions about Time and fuzzy hypersets]"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3
on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:10:30 JST
*