Fundamental Compressionist Philosophy.

[SEACA]

    [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
    [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set.  ]
    [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

Gerry wrote:-

| And I can see a connection between 'change' and the concept of a 'switch'.
| After that, I start to get very hazy about how the switch might work in
| computing. I would feel more able to talk about the switch if I understood
| better what you have in mind. Can you point us to one or more of your web
| pages where you have explained this idea and how it fits into ideas about
| the nature of computing. I know from my own experience that novel ideas
can
| be hard to explain. The more help you can give us, the better we will be
| able to respond.
|

I have just uploaded the page (19th May 2001) that proves that a two-state
switch is the fundamental 'particle' (real or conceptual) of information
processing - it can be found on my site www.seaca.org entitled "The
Fundamental Particles of Information Processing".  I have done this through
demonstrating the construction of a universal Turing machine using nothing
but two-state switches.  This is the first step in introducing everyone to
my world ;-})

I am still some way off a full introduction to my world, though I hope
everyone will give me a little leeway.  In case anyone is wondering why the
hell I am talking about switch systems in a 'Computing as Compression'
discussion group, it is because I am in the process of defining my
conception of the area and have, by necessity, begun with the 'computing'
part.

Anyway, it harks back to Detlef's posting from the depths of 1998 where he
asked -

| Which is the smallest entity of which still can be said, ...
| (1)  it is a fact (the minimal data element)?
| (2)  it is a command (the minimal activity element)?
| (3)  it stores a fact (the minimal memory)?
| (4)  it processes a command (the minimal processor)?
| (5)  it recognizes a pattern (the minimal detector)?
| (6)  it says which two facts have to do with each other (the minimal
|       association)?
| (7)  it describes what to do or what to conclude if (the minimal rule)?
|       and
| (8)  Which is the granularity level from which on you cannot distinguish
|       any further between declarative and imperative instructing?

I trust that my new page answers questions 1-7 conclusively, I can't answer
8 since, to be totally honest, I don't understand the terms used - sometimes
it's a handicap not having an academic computing background - but then again
;-})

Hope you like it,

Andrew.

P.S. Detlef, I can see now, why you thought I had been reading the
introductory postings for the group.  Truth is, I hadn't until yesterday.  I
understood the title in a general sense, thought 'great' and then though
'there are other people who share my fetish - I am not alone', then jumped
right in with both feet :-})) The fact that we both both started off in the
group from a similar vantage point is just another example of
synchronicity - if you would like to know my explanation for how this may
work, read the article entitled "Memechanics" on my site.

e-mail: andrew at seaca.org
website: www.seaca.org