Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 9:58 pm
I will look it over, before I form an opinion, but so far we are "probably" in agreement with the formless aspect of this probability being one of my lack of thorough knowledge of Lambda Calculus as a mathematical language.
If you are kinesthetic learner one easy way to go about it might be to play with the Coq proof assistant: It's a tool for (somewhat) automated theorem-proving. And so if you have any practical experience doing deductive proofs you already have a frame of reference for how the process unfolds.
The rest is just translating it into another symbolic representation. The patterns of thought (algorithms) are largely the same.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 9:58 pm
I will look it over, before I form an opinion, but so far we are "probably" in agreement with the formless aspect of this probability being one of my lack of thorough knowledge of Lambda Calculus as a mathematical language.
If you are kinesthetic learner one easy way to go about it might be to play with the Coq proof assistant: It's a tool for (somewhat) automated theorem-proving. And so if you have any practical experience doing deductive proofs you already have a frame of reference for how the process unfolds.
The rest is just translating it into another symbolic representation. The patterns of thought (algorithms) are largely the same.
I read through it one time thoroughly, referencing the original paper that is.
For what I could understand (based solely on pattern recognition alone), and for how strange this may sound, it reminds me of a quantitative form of Taoism.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 11, 2018 2:11 am
I read through it one time thoroughly, referencing the original paper that is.
For what I could understand (based solely on pattern recognition alone), and for how strange this may sound, it reminds me of a quantitative form of Taoism.
I know nothing about Taoism but I would not be surprised if it's the same idea in different language (Mathematics). We may end up narrating our experiences in different languages, metaphors and symbols, but the phenomenology of human experience doesn't change. It hasn't changed in 10000 years!
So most arguments are about whose language is better...
For example the Ouroboros goes as far back as Ancient Greece. It signifies recursion. Recursion is computation. And computation is at the heart of modern-day physics...
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 11, 2018 2:11 am
I read through it one time thoroughly, referencing the original paper that is.
For what I could understand (based solely on pattern recognition alone), and for how strange this may sound, it reminds me of a quantitative form of Taoism.
I know nothing about Taoism but I would not be surprised if it's the same idea in different language (Mathematics). We may end up narrating our experiences in different languages, metaphors and symbols, but the phenomenology of human experience doesn't change. It hasn't changed in 10000 years!
So most arguments are about whose language is better...
For example the Ouroboros goes as far back as Ancient Greece. It signifies recursion. Recursion is computation. And computation is at the heart of modern-day physics...