<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Garamond;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">With viruses, there is the possibility of gene overlaps where the same sequence codes for multiple proteins. I’m not aware of any effort to use this to design (compress) instruction sets for synthetic systems (e.g. digital computers).
The experience of being out-of-phase with a conversation has the same gist. Maybe you’ll learn something, but it wasn’t what was intended. It’s fanciful, but suppose one reading frame was the benign program and the other was the secret Bitcoin miner
(or whatever). Like homomorphic encryption, but in plain sight.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> on behalf of Jon Zingale <jonzingale@gmail.com><br>
<b>Reply-To: </b>The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com><br>
<b>Date: </b>Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 10:15 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>"friam@redfish.com" <friam@redfish.com><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [FRIAM] Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">Glen,<br>
<br>
I very much agree that questions of a <i>formality-informality</i> spectrum will weave</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#333333"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">itself throughout
<i>the work</i>. It seems to me that the informality ought to provide a</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#333333"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">place</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333"> for birds to make a nest, a
<i>bellybutton</i> for lint to collect, and a <i>place</i> for</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#333333"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">rust to never sleep. To my mind, it is not necessarily the formality that chokes<br>
development. Rather, I think of formality purely as description and one among<br>
many valid and possibly incongruous descriptions. Here is a place that I would<br>
again emphasize Rota's take on eidetic variation. For Rota, the eidetic<br>
variation includes all of the counterfactuals, contradictions, and messiness<br>
that we develop/uncover as we vary in our minds an object of interest. It is<br>
not necessary that we cut away<i> babies from bath waters</i>, but rather recognize<br>
that the concepts are complex. I believe that the development of a concept can<br>
especially choke when we fail to recognize that a concepts formal description<br>
has a <i>combinatorial explosion</i>. A good example is a way the concept of random<br>
number can be used, ironically enough, <i>informally</i> to mean a number I can name.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#333333"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333"><br>
When in a conversation the concept of the random number is invoked, it evokes for<br>
me a complex. I can sense within a <i>single complex: </i>frequentist randomness and Chaitin</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#333333"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">randomness and even an ephemeral feeling/non-symbolic experience. Comparison of</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#333333"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">these complexes with others provides the opportunity for new pivots and jumping-off</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#333333"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">points, for the serendipity of missed connections and false juxtapositions. There was</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#333333"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">something of this in my experience listening to the podcasters. At times I thought</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#333333"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">that one had completely missed the other's
<i>point</i>, but really <i>I had missed the point</i>,</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#333333"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">namely that the discussion was
<i>not about a point</i>. They were in play, constructing</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#333333"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">common complexes and variations which they could share.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#333333"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333"><br>
When I compare or attempt to describe my sense of this in terms of varieties<br>
and free module constructions, I am not saying that concepts <i>are</i> these things.<br>
I am appealing to varieties (say) in terms of its <i>conceptual</i> content. If we found<br>
that the language was flexible enough to do calculations, well that would be a</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#333333"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">pleasant though unintentional corollary.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#333333"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#333333"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">Jon</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#333333"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>