Re: Alpha Now, Omega Later

Post   : Alpha Now, Omega Later : 7
URL    : http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2013/12/19/alpha-now-omega-later-7/
Posted : December 19, 2013 at 11:00 am
Author : Jon Awbrey

Re: Alpha Now, Omega Later
At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2013/11/16/alpha-now-omega-later-1/

Re: Theorems From Physics?
At: http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/theorems-from-physics/

In a way, the relation between “physics space” and “information space”
is one of the topics I address in my work on inquiry driven systems.
Here is a pertinent place in medias res, from which point one may
happily sample both backwards and forwards:

Cf: Prospects for Inquiry Driven Systems • Unabridgements
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Prospects_for_Inquiry_Driven_Systems#1.1.3.3._Unabridgements

<QUOTE>

Part of my task in the projected work is to make a bridge, in theory and practice, from simple 
physical systems to the more complex systems, also physical but in which new orders of features have 
become salient, that begin to exhibit what is recognized as intelligence.  At the moment it seems 
that a good way to do this is to anchor the knowledge component of intelligent systems in the 
tangent and co-tangent spaces that are founded on the base space of a dynamic manifold.  This means 
finding a place for knowledge representations in the residual part of the initial factorization. 
This leads to a consideration of the questions: What makes the difference between these supposedly 
different factors of the total manifold? What properties mark the distinction as commonly intended?

 From a naturalistic perspective everything falls equally under the prospective heading of 
''physis'', signifying nothing more than the first inklings of natural process, though not 
everything is necessarily best explained in detail by those fragments of natural law which are 
currently known to us.  So it falls to any science that pretends to draw a distinction between the 
more and the less basic physics to describe it within nature and without trying to get around 
nature.  In this context the question may now be rephrased:  What natural terms distinguish every 
system’s basic processes from the kinds of coping processes that support and crown the intelligent 
system’s personal copy of the world?  What protocols attach to the sorting and binding of these two 
different books of nature? What colophon can impress the reader with a need to read them?  What 
instinct can motivate a basis for needing to know?

</QUOTE>

-- 

academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache