James, For relevance to type theories in programming I like Bartosz Milewski's take on it here. An entire lecture series, but the part that resonates with me is in the introductory lecture:
"maybe composability is not a property of nature" Cued up here: Category Theory 1.1: Motivation and Philosophy Bartosz Milewski https://youtu.be/I8LbkfSSR58?si=nAPc1f0unpj8i2JT&t=2734 Also Rich Hickey, the creator of Clojure language, had some nice interpretations in some of his lectures, where he argued for the advantages of functional languages over object oriented languages. Basically because, in my interpretation, the "objects" can only ever be partially "true". Maybe summarized well here: https://twobithistory.org/2019/01/31/simula.html Or here: https://www.flyingmachinestudios.com/programming/the-unofficial-guide-to-rich-hickeys-brain/ Anyway, the code guys are starting to notice it too. -Rob On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 7:25 AM James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > First, fix quantum logic: > > https://web.archive.org/web/20061030044246/http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/articles/Dynamical_Markov.pdf > > Then realize that empirically true cases can occur not only in multiplicity > (OR), but with structure that includes the simultaneous (AND) measurement > dimensions of those cases. > > But don't tell anyone because it might obviate the risible tradition of > so-called "type theories" in both mathematics and programming languages > (including SQL and all those "fuzzy logic" kludges) and people would get > really pissy at you. ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T682a307a763c1ced-Mea3f554271a532a282d58fa0 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
