<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" 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:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle19
{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><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Yeah, a dilemma for next few decades. Models like GPT3 or GLAM [1] will start to look at a lot like general AI, but it will be very difficult to understand their mistakes.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Automated science will become routine, and effective in practice whether it is for pharma or materials design. I think there will be a coevolution of tools to gain insights from things that work, but things that work will become before
the understanding of why they work. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Fareed Zakaria had an interview with Billy Joel on his new CNN+ show. Joel claimed he would dream a song and spend the day trying to find it again. I could sort of see that for future implanted systems. Record the dream and then
start disassembling through automated mechanisms. How is disassembly and reassembly any different than theory?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">[1] <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.06905.pdf">https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.06905.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> <b>On Behalf Of
</b>Prof David West<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, April 4, 2022 10:54 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> friam@redfish.com<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [FRIAM] To repeat is rational, but to wander is transcendent<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">"I want to see a full round-trip"</span></i><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">The claim was made, and "proof of claim" was demonstrated, that Rationale's (Now IBM's) Rose provided exactly that. You could start with undocumented code and Rose would produce accurate and
complete UML diagrams and templates. The Diagrams could be altered and Rose would then generate 'correct' and executable code that incorporated the changes. Or you could create a complete UML specification (models and templates) and Rose would generate 'correct'
and executable code. You could make changes to the code, and Rose would generate the UML so you could verify the 'correctness' of the altered code.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Problem was it only worked on a certain kind of program—one directed at a formally describable system, like a device driver or low level OS component. And even within this category of program,
it did not scale beyond programs of tens to a few hundred lines of code.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">It was totally parallel to the massive efforts expended on formal proof of programs. This effort could not scale beyond programs of 100 LOC, or so.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Roughly the same time frame, massive effort was invested in AI assisted natural language translation. It was deemed extremely difficult to translate from NL to NL, because a computer could not
understand or deal with NL of any kind—too much ambiguity, context sensitivity, and metaphor.So an effort was made to find a "perfect language" that could be implemented in a computer and then translate from NL1 to PL to NL2.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Two candidate PLs were proposed: Sanskrit and Aymaran. This effort broke down because it proved impossible to map any NL to either candidate PL beyond some very specific, somewhat formally defined,
NL subsets— a business letter for example, or a technical paper.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">[I have no clue how Google Translate does such a good job at translation. Nor have I tried Google on things like poetry that is extremely difficult for humans to translate.]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">In the realm of software development the ropund-trip is not just from UML-->code-->UML, it is Domain Experts model to Business Analyst's model, to Architects model, to UML model, to code, to
"limbo." Limbo, because no effort exists to close the loop back to the Domain Expert's model. Models, and language employed, at each step of this round-trip is idiosyncratic to that step and, although similar in some minor ways concerning definition and syntax,
requires some fairly sophisticated translation. This translation is never made specific and the result is massive miscommunication (total absence of communication) across the silos.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">One more complication, the idiosyncratic variation among human individuals within a 'silo'—glen's example of senior and junior programmer, for example.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">There is a reason that the multi-billion dollar CASE effort failed. The problem is too complex and too reliant on human abilities to deal with ambiguity, incompleteness, and metaphor—abilities
that a computer and AI will, IMO, never be able to duplicate. My elementary-level understanding of current AI efforts has yet to reveal an idea that seems novel or promising enough to merit a full blown investigation of the technology and my opinion about
the possibility of significant automation of the software development effort remains pretty much intact.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">While I have focused on the narrow domain of software and the round-trip, there is a general argument to be made. Beginning with glen's restatement of my question,<i> "how far can our formal
structures go *toward* that ambiguity?"</i> I would not deny that significant progress is possible, but I would assert that it will always parallel the efforts to apply perfect circles and spheres to planetary orbits—a never ending recursive application of
more and more sophisticated epicycles.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">There will <b><u>always</u></b> be a loss of 'information' when reality is filtered by any formalism. Formalists of every stripe address this fact with nothing more than "whistling while passing
the graveyard," i.e., self-comforting hand-waving while ignoring the issue.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">davew<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">On Mon, Apr 4, 2022, at 9:41 AM, glen wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> I think what we're seeing there is simply that we're getting close <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> enough with big data to constraining the space of concretization an <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> automated system can arrive at. To see the context I'm trying to lay <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> out, consider one junior programmer telling another junior programmer <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> what to implement, declaratively. Then consider a junior programmer <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> telling a senior programmer what to implement. Then consider, say, a <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> literature or history buff explaining to a senior programmer what to <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> implement.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> With each case, the space of possible programs the implementer might <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> implement will change. Requirements flow and satisfaction is <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> concretization. And with examples like these, we're showing vast <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> improvement on such automation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> But the preemptive nature is still there. The difference between a <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> junior and senior programmer (as implementors) should be obvious. It'll <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> carry things like "Well, I've been the Singleton Pattern for years. So <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> there will be a Singleton in there somewhere!" And "Well, the only <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> framework I know is NetLogo. So I guess I'll use NetLogo."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> A more interesting problem, I think, is abstraction. Automatic <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> *reading* of programs. We've seen a lot of progress there, too, of <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> course, perhaps the kerfuffle between xML and iML being fairly tightly <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> focused. But what I want to see is a full round-trip. I don't <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> particularly care which side it starts on, whether abstracting a <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> concrete thing, then reconcretizing the abstraction or vice versa. But <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> comparing and contrasting the initial thing with the iterated thing is <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> the interesting part ... and targets, say, EricS' conception of <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> identity as temporal inter-subjectivity (or "diachronicity" or <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> "narrativity").<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> On 4/4/22 08:54, Marcus Daniels wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>> Is that natural language that is more contextualized? When I look at, say, Open AI Codex, I start see the beginnings of systematic mappings between vague languages and precise ones.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>> <a href="https://youtu.be/Zm9B-DvwOgw">https://youtu.be/Zm9B-DvwOgw</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>> -----Original Message-----<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>> From: Friam <<a href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com">friam-bounces@redfish.com</a>> On Behalf Of glen<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>> Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 7:53 AM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>> To: <a href="mailto:friam@redfish.com">friam@redfish.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] To repeat is rational, but to wander is transcendent<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>> But this is the point, right? That cultural language retains its power at least in part *because* of its ambiguity, it's facilitating role in [re]abstracting and [re]concretizing. Jon's pointing
out that we can design formal structures that *approach* such ambiguity (wandering vs periodic domains - or here with programming language design) targets that ambiguity. Nick's targeted it by questioning intelim rules in natural deduction. I guess we've all
targeted it at some point.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>> Under the paradigm that cultural language follows/reflects something about the human animal, which follows/reflects something about the world, then the question Dave asks, I think, is how
far can our formal structures go *toward* that ambiguity? Can our ideal/formal/rigorous structures follow the world and "jump over" the cultural language and human animal connection ... i.e. follow the world *better*? Or do our formal structures need the animal
for a high fidelity following?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>> We've seen this same question in many other forms (e.g. Penrose's suggestion that human mathematicians do something computer mathematicians can't do, Rosen's suggestion that math/logic/algorithms
can't realize a "largest model", Chalmer's "hard problem", etc.). So, perhaps its old hat. But in the spirit of parallax, rewording it helps those of us who (think they) have solved it in their pet domain communicate their solution to those of us struggling
in other domains.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>> On 4/2/22 13:50, David Eric Smith wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>> It’s nice having Marcus's answer and Frank’s juxtaposed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>> Conflating essences and attributes is logically and structurally incoherent in software design.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>> Whatever process of ratification leads to human language conventions, these assignments get made and may even seem rigid within languages (do not confuse j'ai finis and j’suis finis in French,
though the ambiguity in English is important to Daniel Day Lewis’s line in the bowling alley in There Will be Blood), the semantic field is ambiguous enough to the process of language generation that the verb scopes get drawn differently in different lineages.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>> Hmm.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>> Eric<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>> On Apr 3, 2022, at 12:31 AM, Marcus Daniels <<a href="mailto:marcus@snoutfarm.com">marcus@snoutfarm.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:marcus@snoutfarm.com">marcus@snoutfarm.com</a>>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>> Mixing-up is-a and has-a is a fundamental software design error. It<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>> is so consequential that some languages don’t even allow subtyping of<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>> concrete types. Now it seems essential, but just wait…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>> On Apr 1, 2022, at 9:42 PM, David Eric Smith <<a href="mailto:desmith@santafe.edu">desmith@santafe.edu</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:desmith@santafe.edu">desmith@santafe.edu</a>>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>> </span><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"></span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> On Mar 31, 2022, at 3:24 AM, Roger Critchlow <<a href="mailto:rec@elf.org">rec@elf.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rec@elf.org">rec@elf.org</a>>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> And I suppose the back side of the trap is that we have an innate essentialist heuristic which we use for organizing essentially everything we encounter in the world.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>> You know, in reading this now, I am suddenly put back in mind of<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>> Vygotsky’s Thought and Language, and a category distinction he makes<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>> between “family resemblances” and “predicates”. (Not that there is<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>> any privilege to this reference; only that I have seen so few things<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>> that I often come back to it.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>> If “family resemblance” and “predicate” are even categories, maybe one should add to them “essences” as a third category.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>> What would any of those categories be? Postures toward perceiving? Or “experiencing”?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>> The language that philosophers seem to like that “it is like” something “to be alive” (or whatever; to be a bat) — I have sympathy for their need to have some verbal locution, though I
have no impulse to follow them in using that one — seems to have an origin something like the origin of terms like “quailia”. Or to be off somehow in the same general quadrant. So okay, we can do a lot, and we want verbal conventions for signals to put each
other into various states of mind or frames of reference. The language isn’t analytic in any sense, but if people think they mostly agree on it, maybe it does whatever we put weight on language to do, to some degree. Cues to coordinate states of mind.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>> When Vygotsky uses the term “predicate”, he doesn’t mean it only (or maybe at all) in the logician’s sense of existence of a partition of a collection into non-overlapping classes. He
is referring to something somehow perceptual, so that from an early “family resemblance”, where maybe most of the blocks in a set are the red ones, or maybe most of them are the triangles, etc., we settle on taking “red” as a “property” on the basis of which
to assign set membership. Somehow it is that investing of things with properties or aspects, as a cognitive-developmental horizon, that he means as the shift to assigning them predicates.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>> Is it a mode of perception? A cast of mind, among many in which<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>> perceptions might take place or be enacted? Is “experiencing something” as “being of some essence” then, in any similar sense, a mode of perception or an orientation, disposition, or posture
toward things that partly forms what we take from the interaction with them? That is my attempt to re-say REC’s “innate essentialist heuristic”. Is perceiving-in-essences a distinct disposition from perceiving-as-having-properties? Or are they two names
for the same thing? Linguistically, we seem to use them differently. At least in English, one is strongly attached to the verb “is” and the other to the verb “has”, and there seem to be few instances in which we would regard the two as substitutes. (Though
I can think of constructions involving deictics and existential where apparently the same usage can shift which verb carries it across languages.) Would the linguistic form strongly prejudice the semantic domain, or does it entrain on a semantic domain that
is mostly language- and culture-invariant?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>> I guess the psychologists and the philosophers have all this worked out. Or maybe the contemplatives have systems for it. But those are literatures I don’t cover.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>> Eric<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> So in certain contexts -- mechanics, chemistry, thermodynamics, electronics, computation -- we have refined our naive essentialism into categories and operations which essentially solve
or are in the process of solving the context. And in other contexts, we have lots of enthusiastic application of naive essentialist theories, lots of ritualistic imitations of the procedures employed in the contexts which are succeeding, and lots of proposals
of ways that the unresolved contexts might be reduced to instances of the solved.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> EricS's dimensional analysis in a nutshell, which is an essential description of a successful essential analysis of a context, leaves a lot of problems for the reader to work out if taken
as a recipe for action. How do you identify the units of aggregation? What are the rules for forming larger aggregates from smaller and vice versa? What is entropy, anyway, and what is the correct entropy (*dynamic potential) in this context?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> Thermodynamic state functions as derivatives with respect to entropy are all over JW Gibb's On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances. It is the point. PW Bridgman's Dimensional
Analysis essentially summarizes all of physics up to 1922 as a problem of combining and factoring units of measurement, one of my favorite library discoveries as an undergraduate. Both available in the internet archive.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> -- rec --<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 12:12 PM Marcus Daniels <<a href="mailto:marcus@snoutfarm.com">marcus@snoutfarm.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:marcus@snoutfarm.com">marcus@snoutfarm.com</a>>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> Here is a situation I frequently experience with software development where I try to adopt some code, even my own. I stare at the code and..<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> 1) It becomes clear how to assemble it into to what I want<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> 2) I become confused or frustrated. As a ritual, I remove it from my sight and open a blank editor window to start over. Sometimes I must walk away from the screen to think, until
I want to type.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> I think the reason I dwell in #2 space is because I believe in #1. That is, when I have just the right combinator library things just snap into place. I seem to spend a lot of
time trying to convince myself of why it can't work, and whether it is a bad fit or something that needs to be fixed in the platform. What is important, in this value system, is that platforms are good, not that this or that problem gets solved. I think
it is basically the Computer Science value system in contrast to the Computational Science value system.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> To [re]abstract and [re]concretize can be expensive and those who don't do it have a productivity advantage, as well as the benefit of having particulars to work from. I don’t think
it is a case of confusing the sign for the object. It is a question of what kind of problem one wants to solve.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> In contrast, I have met several very good computational people that hate abstraction and indirection. They want code to be greppable even if it that means it is baroque and good
for nothing else.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> -----Original Message-----<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> From: Friam <<a href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com">friam-bounces@redfish.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com">friam-bounces@redfish.com</a>>> On Behalf
Of glen<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2022 8:40 AM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> To: <a href="mailto:friam@redfish.com">friam@redfish.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:friam@redfish.com">friam@redfish.com</a>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] To repeat is rational, but to wander is<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> transcendent<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> Of all the words being bandied about (quality, property, composition, domain, continuity, intensity, general, special, iteration, etc.) EricC's "contextless" stands out and reflects
EricS' initial target of dimension analysis. The conversation seems to be about essentialism. Maybe that's a nice reflection that we're sticking to the OG topic "analytic idealism". But maybe it's Yet-Another example of our pareidolia to see patterns in noise
and then to *reify* those patterns. [Re]Abstracting and [re]concretizing heuristics across contexts may well be what separates us from other life forms. But attributions of the "unreasonable effectiveness" of any body of heuristics is the most dangerous form
of reification. The superhero ability to [re]abstract and [re]concretize your pet heuristics convinces you they are "properties" or "qualities" of the world, rather than of your anatomy and physiology. Arguing with myself, perhaps Dave's accusation is right.
Maybe this is an<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> example of swapping the sign for the object, or reworded prioritizing for the description over the referent, confusing the structure of the observer with the structure of the observed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> Those of us with less ability tend to attribute (whatever haphazard heuristics they've landed on) to the world *early*. Those of us with more ability continue the hunt for Truth,
delaying attribution to the world until we get too old to play that infinite game any more.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> I think Possible Worlds helps, here, too: <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/possible-worlds/">https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/possible-worlds/</a> <<a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/possible-worlds/">https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/possible-worlds/</a>>
Patterns are simply (non-degenerate) quantifiers over possible worlds.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> Regardless, I'd like to ask whether the formulation of intensive properties as derivatives of entropy w.r.t. extensive properties is formalized somewhere? If so, I'd be grateful for
pointers. I'm used to the idea that the intensives divide out the extensives. But I haven't seen them formulated as higher order derivations from entropy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> Thanks.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> -glen<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> On 3/29/22 14:37, David Eric Smith wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> > [snip]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> > 1. One first has to have a notion of a macrostate; all these terms<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> > only come into existence with respect to it. (They are predicates of<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> > what are called “state variables” — the intensive ones and the<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> > extensive ones — and that is what the “state” refers to.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> ><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> > 2. One needs some criterion for what is likely, or stable, which in general terms is an entropy (extending considerably beyond the Gibbs equilibrium entropy, but still to be constructed
from specific principles), and on the macrostates _only_, the entropy function (which may be defined on many other states besides macroststates as well) becomes a _state function_.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> ><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> > 3. Then (actually, all along since the beginning of the construction)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> > one needs to talk about what kind of aggregation operator we can apply<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> > to systems, and quantities that do accumulate under aggregation become<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> > the arguments of the state-function entropy, and the extensive state<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> > variables. (I say “accumulate” in favor of the more restrictive word<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> > “add”, because what we really require is that they are what are termed<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> > “scale factors” in large-deviation language, and we can admit a<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> > somewhat wider class of kinds of accumulation than just addition,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> > though addition is the extremely common one.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> ><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> > 4. Once one has that, the derivatives of the entropy with respect to the extensive variables are the intensive state variables. It is precisely the duality — that one is the derivative
of a function with respect to the other, which is the argument of that function — that makes it not bizarre that both exist and that they are different. But as EricC rightly says, if one just uses phenomenological descriptions, why any of this should exist,
and why it should arrange itself into such dual systems, much less dual systems with always the same pair-wise relations, seems incomprehensible. For some of the analogistic applications, there may not be any notions of state, or of a function doing what
the entropy does, or of aggregation, or an associated accumulation operation, or gradients, or any of it. Some of the phenomenology may seems to kinda-sorta go through, but whether one wants to pin oneself down to narrow terms, is less clear.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> ><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> > [snip]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> ><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> >> On Mar 30, 2022, at 5:04 AM, Eric Charles <<a href="mailto:eric.phillip.charles@gmail.com">eric.phillip.charles@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:eric.phillip.charles@gmail.com">eric.phillip.charles@gmail.com</a>>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:eric.phillip.charles@gmail.com">eric.phillip.charles@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:eric.phillip.charles@gmail.com">eric.phillip.charles@gmail.com</a>>>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> >><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> >> That is a bizarre distinction, that can only be maintained within some sort of odd, contextless discussion. If you tell me the number of atoms of a particular substance that you
have smushed within a given space, we can, with reasonable accuracy, tell you the density, and hence the "state of matter". When we change the quantity of matter within that space, we can also calculate the expected change in temperature.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>>>>> >><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> -- <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 <a href="http://bit.ly/virtualfriam">bit.ly/virtualfriam</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> un/subscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> archives:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> 5/2017 thru present <a href="https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/">https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 <a href="http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/">http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>