[time 1131] Re: [time 1125] Re: [time 1123] Monads and Interactions

Koichiro Matsuno (kmatsuno@vos.nagaokaut.ac.jp)
Tue, 4 Jan 2000 14:44:53 +0900

Dear Stephen and All

   On Thursday, December 30, 1999 3:20 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:

> Ah, are you echoing the property of nonenumerable that shows up in
> Wegner's model of interactional computation? :-) When we try to take into
> account the fact that the particular structure given by any concretization
> dually, integration) will only be finitely representable, e.g. it will
> have an epsilon of error that can not be neglected, since the requirement
of a
> "pre-ordaind harmony" is untenable as it tacitly assumes that infinite
> information can be computed in arbitrarily small amounts of time.
Basically, it
> assumes the existence of a Maxwellian type of demon that can differentiate
> pair of semantic and syntactic structures that will be consistent under
> arbitrary conditions without having any thermodynamic restrictions!
> The role of the observer of the Universe is deeply involved in this!
> the concrete and integrated aspects of an observer are a priori

   Computation seems to proceed in two domains; one is in syntactic
integration and the other in semantic concretization.Computation in
syntactic integration can be reversible in keeping its integration invariant
and does not care how long it takes to complete its job because it does not
require for the completion resources available only in the empirical world.
Syntactic integration requires only the grammatical rules and a monolingual
dictionary. In contrast, computation in semantic concretization is
necessarily subject to various constraints unique to the empirical domain.
Although syntactic integration can proceed on its own, semantic
concretization does necessitate the participation of syntactic integration
since semantic concretization alone cannot furnish us with an organized,
comprehensible unity. Semantic inconsistencies associated with the
concretization must require the succeeding syntactic integration unless we
are off the point. Constant update of syntactic integration imputed to
semantic inconsistencies every time makes the underlying computation

   Maxwell's demon can become a serious matter only when we take our
thermodynamics to be more than just a matter of another syntactic
integration alone.

   Just a thought.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Jan 10 2000 - 22:16:52 JST