Hi everyone,

Today has been interesting. Friday also was a good day, in which the QUT Tabletop Gaming Club, had our first games night in the new room allocated to us. Games of Magic, Stratego, Chess and Monopoly were played and fun was had by most, if not all.

I also managed to have the online discussion with my INB302 group members the other night, which was quite hectic, but productive.

I have been thinking more and more about recursion as a measure of proof of complexity and a partial proof for reality. We can currently create using our minds or computer , worlds other than the one we appear to exist in.

Phenomenologically these worlds exist to us, however unless communicated we can’t share or clarify there existence with others. In these worlds that we create however, we can make characters, and it perceivable that if those characters had minds, they could create worlds and characters with minds, and so on and thus forth.

You could also use this recursion to create a circular logic structure / paradox, in which your existence is phenomenological creation or observation of the character’s mind , which is the other character’s mind which is in your own.

Currently the hard AI to attempt to simulate reality with free will at an accurate level hasn’t been estabilished, we don’t even have the hard AI to have an inanimate object interface with our reality as though it was sapient and sentient, let alone the hard AI required to implement free thought, imagnation and creativity.

In between the lines of reality, hyperreality, subreality and cyberreality, does recursion of this form benefit us ? Are sophism or solipsism valid mechanisms for thought and approach. Different people interact with the same shared perception / consensus of reality in different ways generating their unique (phenomological) experiences.

Paradoxes are useful when dealing with recursion because they give it a pattern and ocassionally a breakpoint, in which it can revert to a different frame of reference.

Communication of thoughts,ideas and emotions is simple but difficult, because we make it so, in non-dimensionalising and parameterising our dialogue is such that it doesn’t isomorphically from person

A says blah, blah maps to blah2 in common for person A, blah2 in common for person B maps to qwerty. Person A says blah, blah means blah2, blah2 then gets converted back to qwerty so that Person B, understands what Person A is saying.

Person A says blah, Person B hears blah, Person B asks which blah or what do you mean by that ? Blah in what context ?

We need a language that is connationless, emotionless and is such that meaning of the message is shared between two or more unique (phenomological) people.

Ideally if we our brains all work the same way / structure, except with different associations and memories,we could have a thought based language that mapped what were thinking about to a global language value and then attempted to map that value into equivalent or  component parts of another person’s thoughts or memories.

It would work like the Babelfish from HGTG, except it would be based on brainwaves and signals. Something like this is much easier than the current system that allows the analogueness of our vocal chords,body language and an ambigious spoken / written language.

The latter attempts to emulate the isomorphic mapping but isn’t able to due to  both parties mapping their respective phenemological values to the same word and then getting upset when their communication doesn’t ensure that the message is communicated and understood.

Avoding or ignoring something doesn’t make it go away or not exist. (Mildly better strategies include blowing it up (which should reduce most objects to smaller pieces) or setting it on fire (which either makes it on fire, or turns it in smaller piecies which have been burnt)).

Avoidance doesn’t resolve a problem.  Some problems can be resolved by fire and explosions, however this does bring about certain results, intentional or otherwise due to causality.

Can we draw lines ? Are Lines real ? Is Sand real ? Is Sand anymore real that Lines ? If we avoid Lines, we draw only using dots, if we avoid sand , how do we know if it is real ? If we set sand on fire or explode sand and do a decent job of it, we should get glass , but can we set lines on fire or explode lines ?

Best wishes and have fun,

Benjamin Southall aka Appleman1234