Ian
ian glendinning wrote:
> Wow Magnus, n-Tuples twice in a month ! ;-)
>
> I have to say, I agree with your "dimensions" rather than simple
> (one-dimensional) "layers" view of MoQ. All "things" can be
> categorised on these four "aspects" - so placed as points and patterns
> (arrangements of points) in that four dimensional space - evolutionary
> time and change are another axis probably.
>
> The thing I would warn though is not to think of them as entirely
> orthogonal - there is some level of independence, but there is also
> "dependent arising" to use a Buddhist term that links them and their
> causal relationships - causation is not one-way either. So, these axes
> are distinct, but not strictly orthogonal.
I think I see what you mean. Describing on object as an n-tuple suggests you
can
say it has only intellectual value (like {0,0,0,17} ), but that's of course
not possible since all levels are dependent on the lower levels. So if the
supporting lower level patterns disappear, so will the higher level pattern.
But would that make the system non-orthogonal? I would rather add some kind of
constraint to describe the special dependency in the system. Making the axes
non-orthogonal, i.e. tilting them, would raise an impossible issue about how
much to tilt them. It's not as if you can use the coordinate-system to
calculate
anything anyway, or?
> As you say yourself, a certain level of evolution and complexity has
> to occur in any one layer before anything can arise in the next. Those
> (static) patterns of complexity support the higher layer, but do not
> constrain its further evolution. I think it all fits reality
> beautifully.
Me too.
Magnus
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
