With viruses, there is the possibility of gene overlaps where the same sequence codes for multiple proteins. I’m not aware of any effort to use this to design (compress) instruction sets for synthetic systems (e.g. digital computers). The experience of being out-of-phase with a conversation has the same gist. Maybe you’ll learn something, but it wasn’t what was intended. It’s fanciful, but suppose one reading frame was the benign program and the other was the secret Bitcoin miner (or whatever). Like homomorphic encryption, but in plain sight.
From: Friam <[email protected]> on behalf of Jon Zingale <[email protected]> Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 10:15 AM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife Glen, I very much agree that questions of a formality-informality spectrum will weave itself throughout the work. It seems to me that the informality ought to provide a place for birds to make a nest, a bellybutton for lint to collect, and a place for rust to never sleep. To my mind, it is not necessarily the formality that chokes development. Rather, I think of formality purely as description and one among many valid and possibly incongruous descriptions. Here is a place that I would again emphasize Rota's take on eidetic variation. For Rota, the eidetic variation includes all of the counterfactuals, contradictions, and messiness that we develop/uncover as we vary in our minds an object of interest. It is not necessary that we cut away babies from bath waters, but rather recognize that the concepts are complex. I believe that the development of a concept can especially choke when we fail to recognize that a concepts formal description has a combinatorial explosion. A good example is a way the concept of random number can be used, ironically enough, informally to mean a number I can name. When in a conversation the concept of the random number is invoked, it evokes for me a complex. I can sense within a single complex: frequentist randomness and Chaitin randomness and even an ephemeral feeling/non-symbolic experience. Comparison of these complexes with others provides the opportunity for new pivots and jumping-off points, for the serendipity of missed connections and false juxtapositions. There was something of this in my experience listening to the podcasters. At times I thought that one had completely missed the other's point, but really I had missed the point, namely that the discussion was not about a point. They were in play, constructing common complexes and variations which they could share. When I compare or attempt to describe my sense of this in terms of varieties and free module constructions, I am not saying that concepts are these things. I am appealing to varieties (say) in terms of its conceptual content. If we found that the language was flexible enough to do calculations, well that would be a pleasant though unintentional corollary. Jon
-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
