Here’s a technical crossover I’m glad to see. The YouTube video discussion between Karl Friston and Stephen Wolfram was too one-sided and high-level, but I’ve been feeling an intuitive connection between the two theories and I’m glad that’s being explored.
truefaceofevil
Jonathan Gorard’s mind produces theoretical dynamite 🤯
Self-Duality
I'm very interested in that question asked at around 1:02:00 which is whether there is a geometrization of the space of rules, and how they are distributed.
When I was looking at game of life and going through each configuration to find out which ones "generate something interesting" there didn't seem to be any consistent reason as to why or when there would be interesting behavior. If I had to make a guess, the complexity of the distribution of rules is probably also computationally irreducible. That understanding that distribution is like the halting problem. We can't know if that geometry will be a pattern, or if it will be randomly distributed, end or not end etc...and that it's complexity is subject to this observer dependence. in this way i don't think the distribution of the computational geometry of a problem is going to be like the mandlebrot set where it has a concrete form, it's going to vary based on how we are parametrizing the problem.
I usually imagine the ruliad object as like a sphere you can rotate around, and that sphere is like an infinitely deep fractal (like some kind of hyperbolic caley graph) but this is just a mere human perception (and also just plain wrong, over-simplified perception) of what would otherwise be an infinitely complex, infinitely large, and maximally symmetric object.
It's worth investigating for sure.
NightmareCourtPictures
Vaugh Pratt's concept of Residuation matches up nicely with the core idea of Covariant computation!
StephenPaulKing
Bisimilarity is a useful equivalence for computations.
StephenPaulKing
New idea for me: There is no meaning to 'causality' in a deterministic system.
