(Long) Re: Autocoding project proposal.

Timothy Rue threeseas at earthlink.net
Sun Feb 10 10:51:51 EST 2002

On 07-Feb-02 11:39:14 David Masterson <dmaster at synopsys.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Timothy Rue writes:

>> On 06-Feb-02 12:12:24 David Masterson <dmaster at synopsys.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Timothy Rue writes:

>>>> There is only the creation of a configuration of very common code
>>>> functionality, carried out to it's natural conclusion in support
>>>> of versatility.

>>> That has already been done.  It's been done over and over for the
>>> last 50 years of computer programming.  Without a clear definition
>>> of what you mean by "common code functionality" to differentiate
>>> your approach versus what's already out there, I see nothing
>>> worthwhile in your project.

>> I've defined the nine commands, so show me where this configuration
>> you claim has been done over and over again.

>I didn't say they did it in "nine commands".  I said that everyone has
>been working on a definition of "common code" since the very beginning
>of computer programming (for proof, read some of the history of many
>computer programming languages).  The problem is that everyone has a
>different definition of *exactly* what works best.  Oh, there are many
>generally accepted principles but everyone "colors" the definition of
>those principles within their particular implementation (its only
>natural for that to occur).  You might be the first to make the claim
>that those principles can be represented in "nine commands".

>However, so far, your definition of the "nine commands" isn't clear
>enough to determine whether your claim is valid.

>David Masterson                dmaster AT synopsys DOT com
>Sr. R&D Engineer               Synopsys, Inc.
>Software Engineering           Sunnyvale, CA

David, the biggest hurdle I see you dealing with is your belief that the
VIC and it's nine commands are, or make up, a language.

There is a difference between the VIC and language, just as there is a
difference between 3 deminsional reality and 3 deminsional data arrays
existing in a 2 deminsional media.

This is like the problems faced in believing the world is flat. Where what
is communicated from a global round world is attempted to be framed within
a flat earth mindset by those believing in a flat earth. And sometimes it
can seem confusing and wrong. It doesn't fit onto a flat earth...

If you hold an apple up in the air and let go, what language does it use
to tell you it is falling via gravity? Or does it depend on what country
the apple is grown in? Perhaps there is even a dialect it speaks to you in
depending on what part of a country it is grown in?

However, what is real is that a falling apple is not dependant on
language, in order for it to fall. Its dependant on physics of which
existed before we ever did and before we have invented and attached
languages in a description of it, in order to communicate about it's
existance and action/force.

Even this observation of gravity on an apple, then converted to a
description in a given language, makes use of the VIC and its nine

AI - Start apple movement experiment

PK - keep track of time (to know the beginning and end difference)

OI - Observe

IP - using eyes

OP - record a description of what happens, under the title "gravity"

SF - note and follow sequencial steps in apple falling experiment

IQ - Place output record description of "gravity" here for later accesses

ID - Identify earth and apple and their relative size/distance to each
     other and at various points in the experiment.

KE - Constrain to identifying Gravity and defining it in an abstract

Wait a minute! Long before Newton, there were apples falling and all sorts
of other things falling to the earth too.

How is it possible that it is a revelation when Newton does the above?
Perhaps it was just a beginning of understanding the force of gravity?

Today, we still do not fully understand gravity!

Which means that if gravity is a language, as you seem to want to believe
everything is some sort of abstract language, then how do you know you
are speaking it right, since it's not all there?

What came first? The abstract or the concrete?

Language is an invention of man, initially in order to better communicate
reality. Eventually language became capable of describing the non-real.
And as such also became capable of distortions or deception in
communicating reality.

The VIC is not a language, it is an identification of unavoidable physics
in how we use abstraction. You can change the labels attached to the
action set all you want, but the action set is physics, unchangeable.

The value of a postage stamp only goes as far as its ability to stick to a
package. The value of a language to communicate only goes as far as it's
agreed upon use and definitions. The value of physics is ..... well

The definition of the nine commands will never be clear enough to anyone
who persist in seeing them in a scope of less than which they exist. Just
like a belief in a flat earth inherently prevents one from fully
understanding concepts and things from a global round earth.

Or to use another example, advanced math is not possible to understand
using the abstract language of roman numerals. Where roman numerals were
invented to count things, not including "nothing" or "zero" items and as
such didn't have a nothing place holder word/symbol, though the abacus
understood the place value. There is no concept of a place holder in
roman numerals. There is yet no specific identified use of the physical
action constants in abstract programming languages used to automate????

Showing that language and beliefs can falsely limit your perception of
physical reality. Language is a tool that is created as we go along and
better identify and define reality into abstractions. As such the
possibilities of language are endless.

But it's not going to change the fact that you and all of us use the nine
actions of the VIC. If anything, it only keeps you unaware of yourself and
others, what is done. But ignorance has never stopped physics! At best
it's only stopped us from becomming more advanced in what we know and do.

Of the endless potential of languages, the physics of creating and using
languages remains the same. Communication beyond language requires an
awareness that we as a species have yet to develope, if it is at all
possible (mental telepathy of images and actions). But then David, I
suppose to you that would be a language too.

Thru greater awareness of physics we are able to better control our
environment, be it food, clothing, shelter, medicines, .... computer
automations,.... etc..

Avoiding physics does not invalidate physics. It only keeps you and others
ignorant. Meaning the way to validate, is to create the VIC within the
functioning environment of computers and their inherent limitations.

To argue about it is the same as avoidance, it doesn't get you to

So I've asked for help in creating the validation. <shrug> And I've gotten
alot of Nos.... suggesting there is interest in staying ignorant or
widespread (trained?) ignorance regarding how to advance.

Now, what sort of person or peoples would want to promote ignorance of
reality? Those who insist that the world of the abstract is all there is
and that they are the masters of it, over others? What values did those
who promoted the earth as being flat obtain? Position in society? Control
over others?

There is a very real physics to abstraction creation and use. Regardless
of how disrupting it may be to those content on living in pure
abstraction in trying to make reality fit them. .coms proved reality don't
care and doesn't listen to their abstract desires. <shrug>

I can imagine that sometime in the not to distant such things as barbaric
elitist programming practices and .coms will be viewed as sickening as
witch killing, niger burnings and ...... well pick something, anything out
of our history where we now look back and see ignorant controlling acts
performed upon humans by humans. Joan of Arc, Galielo, ______, Holicost a

Funny how Hitler chased Einstein and Fermi out of his territory, their

IS history repeating or going to repeat itself here???

If so, where does it put me?

If you think I want this, then you are insane, living in your world of

There is only one way out of the world of pure abstract illusion.

Validate! and be credited for it.

*3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!*
   *~ ~ ~      Advancing How we Perceive and Use the Tool of Computers!*
Timothy Rue      What's *DONE* in all we do?  *AI PK OI IP OP SF IQ ID KE*
Email @ mailto:timrue at mindspring.com      >INPUT->(Processing)->OUTPUT>v
Web @ http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/  ^<--------<----9----<--------<

More information about the Python-list mailing list