hibbsa
2013-01-21 09:29:10 UTC
Hi DD, There was something else I forgot to mention, this time about the constructor itself.
The thing is DD, the only thing that makes it counter-intuitive constructors are fundamental, is because of your naming choices and also a little your way of introducing tbe concept.
The fact is though, the generic Constructor as you define it, is nothing other than the most ubiquitous fundamentally defining feature of the universe. The causality of phenomena intersecting into a local reality. Always defined with four features. Inputs, outputs, transformations in the middle, and a nonvariable enabler, most simply the reality of'locality' itself.
It's a well chosen starting point. I use it myself at the core of my networks-orientated efforts (name I use is intersection). It's an intuitive choice from a networks analysis perspective. Or maybe I'm getting things completely wrong...maybe the constructor is inconsistent with that concept of ubiquitous locality. But could you explain why? It seems significant since if you began with that insight, the fact you are talking about something fundamental would be obvious from the start.
So all in all, across both posts, my summary criticism is that unless I can't tell the different, the high level components of CT are basically straight forward. The new distinctiveness the theory will bring will be if you've invented a way to actually create these landscapes of all possible and impossible tasks. The proposal of doing so is not radical in of itself...but if you can actually produce it...and do work on it..and if it proved productive .that'd be awesome.
The thing is DD, the only thing that makes it counter-intuitive constructors are fundamental, is because of your naming choices and also a little your way of introducing tbe concept.
The fact is though, the generic Constructor as you define it, is nothing other than the most ubiquitous fundamentally defining feature of the universe. The causality of phenomena intersecting into a local reality. Always defined with four features. Inputs, outputs, transformations in the middle, and a nonvariable enabler, most simply the reality of'locality' itself.
It's a well chosen starting point. I use it myself at the core of my networks-orientated efforts (name I use is intersection). It's an intuitive choice from a networks analysis perspective. Or maybe I'm getting things completely wrong...maybe the constructor is inconsistent with that concept of ubiquitous locality. But could you explain why? It seems significant since if you began with that insight, the fact you are talking about something fundamental would be obvious from the start.
So all in all, across both posts, my summary criticism is that unless I can't tell the different, the high level components of CT are basically straight forward. The new distinctiveness the theory will bring will be if you've invented a way to actually create these landscapes of all possible and impossible tasks. The proposal of doing so is not radical in of itself...but if you can actually produce it...and do work on it..and if it proved productive .that'd be awesome.