[FRIAM] loopiness (again)

[Marcus Daniels]

I wasn't referring to interacting robots, I was referring to one robot.  Doesn’t matter.. I'd say the same thing about a set of robots too.   They could all broadcast their atomic-clock logs to some central server and a partial ordering of events could be established.   It could be completely passive and they wouldn't need to know they were doing it.   

As for lossy compression, one could look to physiology research for mathematical models of how it actually happens in animals or humans, and then have the robots simulate those models to introduce lossy compression.  After doing all this, there will still be some globally addressable bit string, that is either coupled to other bit strings or not. 

I don’t see why it matters in some deep way if there is a partial or total ordering, except to the extent the robots would have some retry events.   Like when people talk at nearly the same time and one of them waits for the other.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ?
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 2:49 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again)


Right.  But what you've done, here, is remove any lossy compression like what happens when humans [mis]identify with some demographic.  Your robots are sharing their information in some perfect sense.  And by doing that, you've _baked_ in the flattening.  Your compression is non-lossy.

And while I admit it may eventually be feasible to do such a thing (with robots), things don't generally happen that way.  Reality as far as we know it is satisficing, not optimizing.  So, we'll start with lossy compression as well as really faulty devices.  To go a bit further in my rhetoric, it's plausible that the lossy and faulty integration is necessary for robustness.  (Although I can't rely on it, I at least have Hewitt to cite: http://www.powells.com/book/inconsistency-robustness-9781848901599/61-1)

On 02/07/2017 01:42 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Ok, one could imagine thousands of very lightweight processors that independently process very high resolution sensor data, and share it asynchronously.  Also one could show that the sensors were as good or better than human sensitivity.  All of the events could be tagged with very high precision atomic clocks and logged.  Then the events could be sorted by that tag.   Somehow `flattening' is important to you here, but I haven't figured out why.   Anyway, once flattening was accomplished to understand what was going on it would just have to be unflattened again, like using some communication sequential processes formalism.


--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove