LangWart: Method congestion from mutate multiplicty

[Rick Johnson]

On Monday, February 11, 2013 11:28:57 PM UTC-6, zipher wrote:
> [...]
> Yeah, this is where one has to consider the idea of a unified data
> model (a sort of OOPv2).  Right now, it's all confused because people
> are using their own internal, subconscious ideas of data.

Indeed! 

The current paradigms lack concrete structures which will prevent these ever-long bickering over minutiae. Our current paradigms are actually self-defeating because they allow too much "interpretation" of what is correct, and what is incorrect. It's like the early pioneer days, cowboys everywhere. We need Wyatt Earp!

> There are
> natural ways of working with data that ***actually map onto the world
> we all share*** and there are other ways which are purely abstract and
> not-pragmatic however "pure".   (Apart from this, there is the
> ultra-concrete data model, like C, which only maps onto the machine
> architecture).  This is where pretty much every computer language is
> today.
> 
> What I'm suggesting I think is somewhat novel.  The first version of
> OOP was too concrete in the sense that it was actually trying to make
> real-world objects in the machine (class Chevy(Car):).  This is
> ridiculous.  There needs to be a refactor of the OOP paradigm.  In
> practice OOP never was used to represent real-world objects.  It came
> to model virtual world objects, a very different world with different
> relationships.  It became the evolution of the data type itself.

> The
> unified object model needs to do for OOP what arithmetic did for
> number:  defined a very basic and general set of operations on the
> concept of "quantificiation".  But here were trying to do that not for
> quantification but for structures.

Most people in the this group would probably consider this to be a fantastical idea. But aren't ALL great ideas fantastical?

>From as long as man has existed he has wanted to fly like a bird -- whether his wish was based on logistical expeditiously or simply a primitive egotistical rebelliousness to overcome the limits of his own physiology.

It's no surprise that the initial attempts were naive at best and resulted in total embarrassment. When he attempted to borrow some "flight attributes" of his feathered friends by "taring-and-feathering" himself, he did /look/ like a bird, however, when he executed the "perfect 10" swan-dive from his second story cave dwelling, only to bounce his face off the granite welcome mat, he was reminded by his audience of the one bird-like feature he already had... his brain!

You see, early man wanted to fly, and knew /somehow/ it was possible, however, his folly was to attempt flight by borrowing attributes of the bird /directly/. In reality, even if could borrow /every/ flight specific attribute of the bird: light weight frame from hollow bones, large lung capacity, aerodynamic body shape and wing structure, features, etc. He would then be /himself/ a bird, and NOT a /human/ flying. Besides, a human changing into a bird is impossible... or is it?[3]

[Warning: Slight tangent curve ahead!]

I think a lot of the failure of achieving flight "hinged" around the superfluous complexity of articulated wings-- of which is something that we have trouble replicating even today with our advancements in mechanical, hydraulic, and computing technology. But articulating wings are another fine example of how "intelligent design" will always beat the pants off "evolution". The simple technology of combining "fixed wings" with "brute force propulsion" can overcome the complex design of articulating wings and gain maintainability in the process. It seems the bird should have developed a squid-like air propulsion emanating from his anus instead of articulating wings and large breast muscles; But i digress!

RR: "A billion years worth of "dice rolling" is no replacement one human imagination! Evolution, you have created your replacement; prepare for your deprecation!"

[Back to the beaten path!]

What early man failed to realize is that he should create a model of the bird, and then hitch a ride on the model! This is an example if utilizing an /indirect/ approach to solving the problem of "human flight".

However, it is still possible to solve the problem directly. Although this direct approach involves man manipulating atomic structures (using nano-technology) and then transforming cognitive state from one entity into another entity (or in-place if we're really good![1]); AKA: "Shapeshifting"

But some rules require too much time to hack, so while the brute algorthim is chewing away for the next 100 years, we need to follow these steps:
  0. Start the brute force algorithm (study nano-tech, computing)
  1. in the short term use the indirect approach (aeroplane)
  2. until the direct approach becomes attainable (shapeshifting)

> My suggestion is to create the "fractal graph" data type to end (and
> represent) all data types.  (Keep all the special, high-speed matrix
> ideas in SciPi/VPython.)  But generally, re-arrange the data model
> around the fractal graph for efficiency and start watching the magic
> happen.

This is interesting. I would love to learn more about your ideas in this direction. Do you have any writings on the subject matter?

============================================================
 REFERENCES:
============================================================

[1]: because creating a temporary entity and then destroying it could have some moral concerns at worst and possible loss of government funding[2] at best.

[2]: Of course that depends on how moral the government in question is.

[3]: I don't believe anything is impossible. If a human mind can imagine something, that something can be made reality; IF the human (or descendants) are willing to invest the time required to achieve the dream. 

It is our very imagination that creates the future. If you want Distopia, then just keep reading/writing/evangelizing about it, and if enough people accept it, it will be true! If you want utopia, well then forget about it! The universe will not allow such abominations!

Utopian environments do not propagate struggles that are life threatening; heck they probably don't contain any struggles at all! Just a bunch of fat a$$es racing around on motorized chairs down the highway of slothfulness to gorge on selfishness at the next "evolutionary dead end" buffet!

Only struggles that hang the very life of these lazy lifeforms in the balance will get their attention and force them to play the "war games" of survival, which in-turn spins the cogs of evolution to the benefit of, well, of...? Hmm. Who benefits from this eternal struggle? 

Lifeforms themselves are but pawns in the game /slaved/ to play or die, and evolution is the game itself, but who benefits? A good question that should haunt your nightmares for some time to come, sweet dreams folks!