Re: On a capability-structured universe
stay <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.e.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
My ocap-universe idea was more along the lines of unguessability than unforgeability: you can jump to arbitrary points in space (as defined by a particular relativistic frame and made free of paradoxes by the analysis here: http://tinyurl.com/mkny98) but the coordinates are unpredictable, so you effectively can't get to anywhere in particular unless you know its address, since the coordinate space is too big to brute-force. On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 7:03 PM, John Carlson<[email protected]> wrote: > It seems like ambient authority is similar to an objective universe > (each subject basically sees similar stuff), and ocaps are similar to > a subjective universe (each subject sees their capabilities). Reality > is a mixture between the two. > > > On Aug 19, 2009, at 5:27 PM, Kevin Reid wrote: > >> I've occasionally pondered the idea of simulating a capability- >> structured universe; it would be essentially a capability operating >> system on a finite machine, but with a design such that the amount of >> computation occurring is constant ("conserved"); i.e. there are no >> errors such that programs stop and are not replaced by something else. >> >> It occurred to me that the latter portion of Greg Egan's _Schild's >> Ladder_ depicts something similar to how such a universe (containing >> complex structures) might end up, or at least, similarly different >> from the universe we have. Well, so far as I recall the details; it's >> been a year or two since I read it. >> >> -- >> Kevin Reid <http://switchb.org/kpreid/ >> > >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> e-lang mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/e-lang > > > _______________________________________________ > e-lang mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/e-lang > -- Mike Stay [email protected]