Object Oriented Artificial Life Programming

So what if we had object oriented programming that was a little more like real life. Instead of having a reference to an object, say to contact an object to send it a message, you had to do a search through a space (ambient authority?). Even if you have the address of an object, a different object may pick up the message, possibly to pick it up and deliver it through delegation or aspect oriented programming.

Here are the fundamentals:

1. Objects can create new objects.
2. Every object has a voice/signing ability that is adjustable to send messages to other objects
3. Every object can feel/taste/hear/see/smell its environment and other objects
4 . Objects can ingest objects to protect them or destroy them.
5. Objects can move other objects around.
6. Messages may or may not make it to an object.
7. Messages may be recorded for playback.
...

Structures

The bit is a 1 dimensional object (in time) everything else in information technology is a collection

Discrete Structures (information based)
Set (0D, non-ordered, singleton values--since it is 0 dimensional, it doesn't really exist)
Array (list, 1D, implicit indexing, singleton values)
Array (map, 2D, explicit indexing, name-value pairs)
Array (graph, nD, implicit indexing, value tuples)
Table (nD, fixed size rows and columns), CSV, TSV
Table (tree/outline/hierarchy/taxonomy, nD, variable size rows and columns) XML, HDF, Lisp
Hypertext (multiple taxonomies, ontology)
Image (3D, fixed size depth, rows and columns), JPEG, TIFF, PNG
Movie (4D, bounded depth, rows and columns, time), MPEG
HyperMovie (4D, unbounded depth, interactive)
MMOG (5D, each user sees a different movie)

Continuous Structures, Equations (geometry/calculus based)
Now - 0D object (transient)
Points - Continuous 1D object (in time)
Lines - Continuous 2D object
Curves - Continuous 3D object
Plane - Continuous 3D object
Surface - Continuous 4D object
Mathematical Space - Continuous nD object
Volume - Continuous nD object
Hypervolume - Self-referential volume, Klein bottle, Escher's "The Gallery", Continuous Hierarchy (self-reference at a massive scale)

Hybrid Structures (physics based--motion described by geometry/calculus, measurement described by information)
Fractals
Fuzzy Systems
Mass
Time
Space
Turbulence/Flow
Molecules
Photons

Statistical Parsing

So I just discovered statistical parsing. It looks a lot like continuous hierarchy.
You would assign a probability to each ordering of a set. You would assign a probability to each membership of a set, and you would assign a probability or uncertainty to the value of any element.

Subjective Uncertainty in Code

So how do we apply subjectivity and uncertainty to code? Here's how: You are uncertain which method you are going to call. You are uncertain as to the order of the parameters to the method. Inside the method, you are uncertain as to which statements are in the body of the code. And you are uncertain as to the ordering of the statements. You are also uncertain of the number of objects and ordering that will be returned from a function.

If you were programming in Lisp, you wouldn't be sure of the ordering or content of the s-expressions in your program.

Turing Machines and Fuzzy Systems

So Turing Machines are based on symbols. But what if no two symbols are exactly alike, especially in time? Does it matter? Can a Turing machine recognize a symbol which is not exactly like what it's expecting? This is the whole problem with classical Turing machines, that they are based on symbols which are exact. (perhaps not quantum Turing machines)

Oscillating or Fuzzy or Uncertain Time

So if we are unsure of things in space, perhaps we can have uncertainty in time as well. Perhaps I can say it's 9pm + or - 7 minutes. Since we have time zones, we don't really know what the real exact time is, we are generally within one hour of the actual time. That provides a lot of leeway.

More on Continuous Hierarchy and Geometry

1. We are uncertain of what the fundamental aspect of geometry is (points don't exist)
2. We are uncertain of the collections of the fundamental aspects.

Continuous Hierarchy and Geometry

Here's how Continuous Hierarchy relates to geometry.

1. We are uncertain of either the velocity or the position of a point
2. We are uncertain of the ordering of points within a group.
3. We are uncertain of the points a group contains
4. A polygon is an uncertainly ordered group.

Reversible Computing

At the lowest level, reversible (quantum) computing (circuitry) can be done by maintaining the inputs from each computation. Thus there along with 2 inputs for an AND gate, there is an unknown input. There are 3 outputs as well, the 2 inputs, and the result from anding the two inputs. This allows computations to be reversed and checked as well. There is no loss of information, and unknowns progress into knowns. The only thing that you can't recover is the unknowns.

Continuous Hierarchical Turing Machine

So what would be a turing machine that could deal with continuous hierarchy?

1. First, it would have to deal with symbols changing slightly, with possible unknown symbols.
2. It would have to deal with tape that it doesn't know the contents of, and the tape may change suddenly under it. (I think currently turing machines have this).
3. It would have to deal with reordering of symbols on the tape.

I think that probablistic turing machines can handle 3. And a quantum computer is a a kind of probablistic turing machine.

I have to think more about the rest of the turing machine besides the tape perhaps.

Combinatoric Turing Machines

Combinatoric Turing Machines work on scales of the internet, where there are millions of symbols. Each step in the machine reads and writes millions of symbols. But for efficiency of processing, out of the millions of symbols being read, only a few are chosen to compute the value of a symbol under the read head. Once you have the chosen symbols, you would apply some criteria to chose one: average, max, min, lucky, first, last, sum, best, most terms covered, etc.

More on Fractal Turing Machines

Well, here's more on fractal turing machines. What I am thinking is that you can go both up and down the number of symbols being analyzed. Thus you could look at two symbols at the same time, four symbols at the same time .... Or you could look at 1/2 a symbol... As well as being able to advance fractional amounts. If you look at a lot of symbols at the same time, you would need some function to provide a final value, like, min, max, average, etc. What if you have millions of symbols, what do you do? The answer is to choose a certain number of symbols to represent the collection of symbols, or what you might call a combinatoric turing machine.

Double Helix Turing Machine

What if there was a twisting Turing Machine?

Fractal Turing Machines

So there is variable rate encoding of music. What about a variable rate Turing machine, such that the frequency and amplitude of each symbol are different distances apart on the tape.

Or how about a Turing Machine which divides a symbol into 2, 4, or 8 symbols (quadtree and octree).

These might be thought of as fractal Turing machines.

Criticisms of the Turing machine

Here are some criticisms of the Turing machine:

1. It doesn't allow for advancing a fractional amount along the tape
2. It doesn't allow for torn tape, or the machine falling off the tape
3. It might not allow for unknown symbols

What you might want to do with a Turing machine is:

1. Add new sections of tape
2. Delete old sections of tape

I think these can be handled with a Turing machine, through erasing and moving symbols

I think we need to advance to a fractal Turing machine

A Continuous Hierarchy

Composite functions in computers take a time to run. Each step takes time. Climbing up and down hills take time. Each step takes time. So how are steps in computer science like steps in a computer? We can often determine how long a step will take in a computer. A composite step however, may take different amounts of time. Thus we assign a range to the amount of time an algorithm takes, or a big O() notation. In real life, we can give a rough estimate to how long a step will take, but it depends on how fast the person is hiking, what kinds of obstacles there are, etc. Similarly, there might be obstacles in computer science. The hills in computers are circuits, and each step is a transistor. The circuit is continuous. If we use AND OR and NOT as primitives on the network, we can see even more time being spent between steps. Light bounces around the room a continuous fashion, and each collision with an object is a step.

Continuous Hierarchy as Continous Programming

Currently, computer programming, in a language like, say Lisp or Java, has a levels of hierarchy. I think we need to break the levels down into surfaces or curves, to achieve continuous programming. Then we can mix and match.

If you think of logic as a hierarchy of rules, then what is a fuzzy hierarchy of rules? What is a continuous hierarchy of rules? The rules must break out of their well confined structure of sets and be truly fuzzy. Thus decision trees become a pile of fuzzy fuzzy rules.

Defective Fuzzy Operators, Fuzzy Defective Operators

So what are defective fuzzy operators? They are the typical fuzzy operators, such as union/or intersection/and and complement/not but they don't return crisp fuzzy sets. Instead they return fuzzy fuzzy sets. So the boundaries of your resultant fuzzy set don't match the input fuzzy sets.

This appears to be a new technology. One may say that my model is wrong if the operators return the wrong results. I say that fuzzy operators as they typical are thought of are defective, and need to be replaced with more realistic, real world operators.

Perhaps there are fractal fuzzy operators or fuzzy fractal operators. And don't forget faulty fuzzy operators and fuzzy faulty operators

Something to think about.

Fractional and Transcendental Derivatives

So, if you have a fractal hierarchy that bends, its motion can be described with fractional derivatives. But what is a transcendental derivative? That seems very interesting, and I am pursuing information on it.

Continuous Hierarchy from a geographical perspective

We have artificial political boundaries that form from bivalent thinking. But the world is geographical. There aren't really lines where my property, city, county, state, or country begins or ends. Of course, you shouldn't trespass or steal--but that's a social idea, not a geographical idea. You would let your neighbor stand on your driveway to talk to you, but if he was just standing there all day long, you might be concerned for him.

As a youngster, I thought about what it meant to have a house that was on a state or country line. Would that mean you would have to pay taxes in both states? Neither state? The state of your choice? Whatever side of the house you spent the most time in?

Continuous Hierarchy, a new definition

So I don't think that set membership should be a quality of continuous hierarchy. Instead continuous hierarchy should be more like exploration. You wander around a "space" and find elements, without any set boundaries. There is no membership in sets. Sets are abstractions which don't belong in continuous hierarchy. What there is is relativity. You place elements relative to each other, not on coordinates like in a set or not in a set. The location of each element is uncertain, as well as the velocity.

Now how does this relate to speech? A sentence is a landscape of information.

Multidimensional Electricity

I know that direct current electricity runs from positive to negative. But what if there were more poles to electricity? There are 4 forces. Can we leverage the forces in these to generate other types of electricity? Maybe we can remotely control electricity? Alternating current can be thought of as a 2 dimensional wave. What about an ocean of electricity, a 3 dimensional wave? Or even more untapped dimensions. Light might be thought of as an ocean of electricity. How many dimensions are there to light? Complex numbers were perhaps invented to get rid of discontinuities between surfaces in space. What about the discontinuities between stars in space? Could some complex number system allow us to travel between stars?

Editor's Note: After viewing a lecture on Physics, I realize that there is a field of electricity.