[FRIAM] hidden

[Frank Wimberly]

Gauge FIELDS, Knots and Gravity.  Sorry.

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:16 AM Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Matrices that have no inverse are called "singular".  Would that word work
> in this context?
>
> The treatment of fibers, bundles, connections, etc. that I am familiar
> with is in Baez's book Gauge Theory, Knots and Gravity.
>
> Frank
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 9:40 AM uǝlƃ ☣ <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 5/19/20 4:55 PM, Jon Zingale wrote:
>> > Doing so could be one meaningful way to interpret /tracing a thought/.
>>
>> Yes. While I don't fully grok the expansions from fibers to
>> bundles/sheaf, what it evokes in my head seems coherent.
>>
>> > With regards to the discussion about our holographic surface, I could
>> use more
>> > clarification on the lossy/lossless property. I assume we agree that
>> sorting is
>> > not dual to shuffling. For instance, defining the type of a shuffling
>> algorithm
>> > does not require Ord <
>> http://zvon.org/other/haskell/Outputprelude/Ord_c.html> to be a class
>> constraint, where it /is/ required for sorting.
>>
>> I think whether shuffle is yet another ordering depends on what we mean
>> by "random". But I don't want to devolve into metaphysical conversations
>> about free will and whatnot. So, if we assume shuffle is ordered, just
>> ordered mysteriously, then we can talk about loss sans metaphysics.
>>
>> > If we are claiming that the information found on our holographic
>> surface is
>> > complete, I would like to think we are claiming it to be lossless‡. At
>> the end
>> > of the day, it may be the case that we will never know the ontological
>> status of
>> > information reversibility through a black hole. Am I wrong about this?
>> If our
>> > holographic surface isn't reversible, is hashing perhaps a better
>> analogy?
>>
>> To do complete justice to the steelman of the EricC/Nick claim, I think
>> we do have to assert no loss. And invertibility of the transform(s) is the
>> right way to think. But I *also* think, if we tried hard enough, we could
>> get EricC/Nick to admit to some loss with the caveat that what's lost in
>> that lossy transform is *irrelevant* somehow (EricC's use of "invalid" and
>> yammerings about Wittgenstein >8^D). And since my point isn't to
>> inadvertently create a *strawman* of their claim by making the steelman too
>> ... well, steely, I'd like to allow for a lossy transform as well as a
>> lossless transform. And, by extension, I'd like to allow both invertible
>> and uninvertible transforms.
>>
>> That may well be important if the steelman turns out to be nothing *more*
>> than metaphor. If all I'm doing is laying out a metaphor for privacy, then
>> I'll lose interest pretty quick because what I'm *trying* to do is classify
>> privacy. I want string comprehension to be in the same class as
>> behaviorism. I don't want to draw super-flawed analogies between them.
>>
>> But the distinction ([non]invertibility) might very well help evaluate
>> the believability of the steelman.
>>
>> > If in the limit of behavioral investigation we find no more semantic
>> ambiguity than
>> > the semantic ambiguities we experience when attempting to understand an
>> others
>> > language, [...]
>>
>> I don't think it is. I think there is a no-go lurking that is associated
>> by EricS's recent mention of the student laughing because the insight was
>> "at his elbow". And it's (somehow) associated with Necker cubes, paradigm
>> shifts, and even a "loss of innocence" you see in people who've become
>> cynical, the difference between work and play, "flow", etc. It's related
>> (somehow) to the opportunity costs of using decoder X instead of decoder Y.
>> As SteveS pointed out, one's participation in the landscape *changes* the
>> landscape.
>>
>> This is fundamental to the steelman we're building. It's not merely
>> epiphenomenal. By decoding the surface of the ... [ahem] ... "patient", you
>> are *manipulating* the patient. You can see this directly in your worry
>> about [ab]using Frank as our privacy touchstone.
>>
>> I wanted to set the stage for this in the formulation of 1st order
>> privacy (by obscurity) by laying out the thing to decode side-by-side with
>> the decoder, evoking a UTM where the tape contains both the computation and
>> the description of the machine that can do the computation ... but I
>> thought that would interfere with my main targets EricC and Nick. If they
>> reject the steelman, then this becomes a tangent project of numbers,
>> groups, and codes ... which is cool, but not what I intended [†].
>>
>> [†] I'd love to sit in on a read of Gentry's paper, though it'd all be
>> over my head.
>>
>>
>> --
>> ☣ uǝlƃ
>>
>> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. .
>> ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>> FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC>
>> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>
>
>
> --
> Frank Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
> 505 670-9918
>


-- 
Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200520/3cf2da98/attachment-0001.html>