Enexseenge
Kingston WA
Registered: Mar 2005
Posts: 46 
The idea of information and systems.
Today while i was at work i was thinking about this idea of the interrupt and realized that it is a very important concept to consider and glad that you had brought it up. Since my systems are more abstract then a physical machine i had to bridge what you had commented on with my ideas. I see that this gets into the idea of "memory" and how an identity is represented within the system, which is exactly what i am looking into right now.
For the past 2 years i have been researching the real numbers and set theory, Godel, Cantor, Zermelo, Russell, Whitehead... But my approach is quite spontaneous and uncertain.
I started with the question, "what is a number, and what is the interaction between numbers?".. I came up with this idea that a number it self need not represent merely quantity or order but more so may exist as a "Structure"* of innate properties that an identity can represent. These properties allow the identity to be a member of a function or relation (the function exploits these "innate" properties") with other “identities“ (elements).
Next i needed conditions which would help me consider how an "interaction" between numbers might happen, i needed something which would allow separateness to exist and exchange to take place, and I needed to get rid of irrational numbers because they really pissed me off when considering an edge in a network.
So I consider that for any number to be existent (whether your write it on a paper or a function traverses it) it must have it's expression received so as to be identified and held.
The reason that it must be held is that there is a "decay" which takes place and dissolves structures, and it happens at the same rate as identity (try not to imagine time too much though…).
So, if we were to have a moment in which an identity appear to us it's structure would have already decayed by the time we received it's expression. The “structure“ of an element cannot exist simultaneously with it‘s expression unless a signal is receipted by that structure at the same time that the expression is released..
So this decay helped me consider the idea of a strange type of space, an identity space, where elements could come together and try their hand at maintaining structures. But I came across a big problem in my thinking at this point, and that was how an element deals with two simultaneous "receptions".. I am still totally unsure about what to do about this but it’s what your mentioning of the interrupt has led me to think about. I have been ignore the idea of simultaneous receptions upon an element, and this is because I am unsure of how to proceed. I don’t like the idea of a “expression” having a magnitude, but it very well might work. The other idea I had was that when two signals are received simultaneously some how it changes the element, or causes it to simply express a multiple… hmmm I am begging to think about it as I write and don’t want to get off topic…
In my idea of the system the "environment" (which happens to be other systems) are continually expressing their state. Now, here we find the first problem already with the use of the word continuous; for how could a finite measure of signal be observed if the expression was truly continuous? My lack of experience may simply obscure me here but I believe that it is a valid point that a "continuous" transfer cannot actually occur, for there would be no sequence of a signal.. Would the signal be incomplete, where we are on the result side of the computation, never able to see the bit stream so we know it as nothing??
At this point is where I start to consider sets, particularly the set of all real numbers.
As for “information”, what I was hinting at is the creation of a new structure, vrs to “reuse” of a prior structure.
Any ways, I rarely speak to anyone about this so I am stopping here least I ramble as I do in my personal writings…
I look forward to your response and please take your time.
Kyle.
* Structure: A structure can be considered a node in a network.
It is easy to confuse identity with structure, but an identity is the result of perceiving a structure, the result of bringing identity to an element. Unless a structure is “identified” then if we say it exists we cannot be 100% certain that it does.. So I made a little rule that says in order to be 100% certain that a structure exists and is maintained it has to be ‘pinned in’ by it’s reception of a secondary element and it’s expression to that secondary element (which leads to that secondary element identifying the first).. This is a the most basic “network”, it goes back and forth at a fixed rate and maintains a two member structure at that rate as well.
__________________
A great revolution is at hand, but this is just a metaphor.
Report this post to a moderator  IP: Logged
