Home > Archive > Cobol > July 2007 > (OT) ET's computing language
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
(OT) ET's computing language
|
|
|
|
http://isaaccaret.fortunecity.com/
'First of all, you wouldn't open up their hardware to find a CPU here, a=
nd =
a data bus there, and some kind of memory over there. Their hardware =
appeared to be perfectly solid and consistent in terms of material from =
=
one side to the other. Like a rock or a hunk of metal. But upon [much] =
closer inspection, we began to learn that it was actually one big =
holographic computational substrate - each "computational element" =
(essentially individual particles) can function independently, but are =
designed to function together in tremendously large clusters. I say its =
=
holographic because you can divide it up into the smallest chunks you wa=
nt =
and still find a scaled-down but complete representation of the whole =
system. They produce a nonlinear computational output when grouped. So 4=
=
elements working together is actually more than 4 times more powerful th=
an =
1. Most of the internal "matter" in their crafts (usually everything but=
=
the outermost housing) is actually this substrate and can contribute to =
=
computation at any time and in any state. The shape of these "chunks" of=
=
substrate also had a profound effect on its functionality, and often =
served as a "shortcut" to achieve a goal that might otherwise be more =
complex.
So back to the language. The language is actually a "functional =
blueprint". The forms of the shapes, symbols and arrangements thereof is=
=
itself functional. What makes it all especially difficult to grasp is th=
at =
every element of each "diagram" is dependant on and related to every oth=
er =
element, which means no single detail can be created, removed or modifie=
d =
independently. Humans like written language because each element of the =
=
language can be understood on its own, and from this, complex expression=
s =
can be built. However, their "language" is entirely context-sensitive, =
which means that a given symbol could mean as little as a 1-bit flag in =
=
one context, or, quite literally, contain the entire human genome or a =
galaxy star map in another. The ability for a single, small symbol to =
contain, not just represent, tremendous amounts of data is another =
counter-intuitive aspect of this concept. We quickly realized that even =
=
working in groups of 10 or more on the simplest of diagrams, we found it=
=
virtually impossible to get anything done. As each new feature was added=
, =
the complexity of the diagram exponentially grew to unmanageable =
proportions. For this reason we began to develop computer-based systems =
to =
manage these details and achieved some success, although again we found =
=
that a threshold was quickly reached beyond which even the supercomputer=
s =
of the day were unable to keep up. Word was that the extra-terrestrials =
=
could design these diagrams as quickly and easily as a programmer like =
DocDwarf could write a Cobol program. It's humbling to think that even a=
=
network of supercomputers wasn't able to duplicate what they could do in=
=
their own heads. Our entire system of language is based on the idea of =
assigning meaning to symbols. Their technology, however, somehow merges =
=
the symbol and the meaning, so a subjective audience is not needed. You =
=
can put whatever meaning you want on the symbols, but their behavior and=
=
functionality will not change, any more than a transistor will function =
=
differently if you give it another name.'
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D
Amazing nay?
jb
-- =
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
| |
| Alistair 2007-07-02, 6:55 pm |
| On 2 Jul, 04:27, JB <hong...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> http://isaaccaret.fortunecity.com/
>
> 'First of all, you wouldn't open up their hardware to find a CPU here, an=
d =20
> a data bus there, and some kind of memory over there. Their hardware =20
> appeared to be perfectly solid and consistent in terms of material from =20
> one side to the other. Like a rock or a hunk of metal. But upon [much] =20
> closer inspection, we began to learn that it was actually one big =20
> holographic computational substrate - each "computational element" =20
> (essentially individual particles) can function independently, but are =20
> designed to function together in tremendously large clusters. I say its =20
> holographic because you can divide it up into the smallest chunks you wan=
t =20
> and still find a scaled-down but complete representation of the whole =20
> system.
Somebody has been reading too much science fiction. A better word to
use would have been fractal, not holographic.
> They produce a nonlinear computational output when grouped. So 4 =20
> elements working together is actually more than 4 times more powerful tha=
n =20
> 1.
I wonder how they overcame the need to control each device in relation
to the others. Four multicores on a chip does not produce four times
the output that one core does (because of the need to control the
cores).
> Most of the internal "matter" in their crafts (usually everything but =20
> the outermost housing) is actually this substrate and can contribute to =20
> computation at any time and in any state.
Perhaps Nasa should change it's design philosophy for future space
vehicles and make all spacecraft from recycled pcb boards.
> The shape of these "chunks" of =20
> substrate also had a profound effect on its functionality, and often =20
> served as a "shortcut" to achieve a goal that might otherwise be more =20
> complex.
>
> So back to the language. The language is actually a "functional =20
> blueprint". The forms of the shapes, symbols and arrangements thereof is =20
> itself functional.
Sounds like ADA. So Cobol is dead after all.
> What makes it all especially difficult to grasp is that =20
> every element of each "diagram" is dependant on and related to every othe=
r =20
> element, which means no single detail can be created, removed or modified=
=20
> independently. Humans like written language because each element of the =20
> language can be understood on its own, and from this, complex expressions=
=20
> can be built. However, their "language" is entirely context-sensitive,
The word "Bollocks" is also context sensitive. You can take that any
way that you wish.
=20
> which means that a given symbol could mean as little as a 1-bit flag in =20
> one context, or, quite literally, contain the entire human genome or a =20
> galaxy star map in another.
Data compression that Winzip would be proud of.
> The ability for a single, small symbol to =20
> contain, not just represent, tremendous amounts of data is another =20
> counter-intuitive aspect of this concept. We quickly realized that even =20
> working in groups of 10 or more on the simplest of diagrams, we found it =20
> virtually impossible to get anything done. As each new feature was added,=
=20
> the complexity of the diagram exponentially grew to unmanageable =20
> proportions. For this reason we began to develop computer-based systems t=
o =20
> manage these details and achieved some success, although again we found =20
> that a threshold was quickly reached beyond which even the supercomputers=
=20
> of the day were unable to keep up. Word was that the extra-terrestrials =20
> could design these diagrams as quickly and easily as a programmer like =20
> DocDwarf could write a Cobol program.
Some of us have long suspected that DD was an alien.
> It's humbling to think that even a =20
> network of supercomputers wasn't able to duplicate what they could do in =20
> their own heads. Our entire system of language is based on the idea of =20
> assigning meaning to symbols. Their technology, however, somehow merges =20
> the symbol and the meaning, so a subjective audience is not needed. You =20
> can put whatever meaning you want on the symbols, but their behavior and =20
> functionality will not change, any more than a transistor will function =20
> differently if you give it another name.'
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=AD=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D
>
> Amazing nay?
>
> jb
>
Clearly a load of twaddle but amusing reading none-the-less.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|