Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #33464 > unrolled thread

There is such a thing as Chaos

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  There is such a thing as Chaos Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2014-09-20 10:54 -0700
    There is such a thing as Chaos Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-09-20 11:29 -0700
    Re: There is such a thing as Chaos humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2014-09-20 12:54 -0700
      Re: There is such a thing as Chaos Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2014-09-20 13:40 -0700
        Re: There is such a thing as Chaos albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-09-21 11:29 +0000
          Re: There is such a thing as Chaos rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-21 07:56 -0400
    Re: There is such a thing as Chaos "Rod Pemberton" <buzzoff@nonamewhichexists.cmm> - 2014-09-20 18:32 -0400
      Re: There is such a thing as Chaos "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-09-20 13:22 -1000
        Re: There is such a thing as Chaos Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2014-09-20 17:01 -0700
        Re: There is such a thing as Chaos Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2014-09-21 09:48 +0100
      Re: There is such a thing as Chaos Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2014-09-20 16:57 -0700
        Re: There is such a thing as Chaos "Rod Pemberton" <buzzoff@nonamewhichexists.cmm> - 2014-09-21 20:49 -0400
        Re: There is such a thing as Chaos Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2014-09-27 18:06 -0700
    Re: There is such a thing as Chaos Whammo <sidciavic@gmail.com> - 2014-09-22 20:16 -0700
      Re: There is such a thing as Chaos rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 01:08 -0400
        Re: There is such a thing as Chaos Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 00:28 -0700
          Re: There is such a thing as Chaos hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-09-23 20:19 -0700
    Re: There is such a thing as Chaos Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2014-09-27 17:34 -0700

#33464 — There is such a thing as Chaos

In all civilized thought systems, religion, science, philosophy, mathematics, etc, it is said that there is no such thing as Chaos as an inherent force of Nature.  Chaos is really just an illusion of the unenlightened mind.  Look deep enough and Chaos vanishes.

But, I assert that there is such a thing as Chaos.  For instance, there is no such thing as perfect data.  There may be not such a thing as perfect hardware or perfect software.  There is no excuse for not watching the road.  The map is not the territory.

So, when using Forth, expect the unexpected.

Jason

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#33465

Sorry Jason but that sounds like a load of lofty meaningless gobbledygook to me! 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33469

On Saturday, September 20, 2014 8:54:37 PM UTC+3, Jason Damisch wrote:
> In all civilized thought systems, religion, science, philosophy, mathematics, etc, it is said that there is no such thing as Chaos as an inherent force of Nature.  Chaos is really just an illusion of the unenlightened mind.  Look deep enough and Chaos vanishes.
> 
> 
> 
> But, I assert that there is such a thing as Chaos.  For instance, there is no such thing as perfect data.  There may be not such a thing as perfect hardware or perfect software.  There is no excuse for not watching the road.  The map is not the territory.
> 
> 
> 
> So, when using Forth, expect the unexpected.
> 
> 
> 
> Jason

Hi!
Chaos will exist as long as intelligent life will exist :)
Have a nice day,
humptydumpty

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33470

Just a little thing for your to smile at or disagree with as you see fit.

Jason

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33487

In article <244a0313-f211-400f-a367-3d5388ee46b2@googlegroups.com>,
Jason Damisch  <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Just a little thing for your to smile at or disagree with as you see fit.

Or to ignore for those that don't want to squander their precious time.
>
>Jason
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33489

On 9/21/2014 7:29 AM, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> In article <244a0313-f211-400f-a367-3d5388ee46b2@googlegroups.com>,
> Jason Damisch  <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Just a little thing for your to smile at or disagree with as you see fit.
>
> Or to ignore for those that don't want to squander their precious time.

Preferably in silence...  ;)

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33472

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 13:54:34 -0400, Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com>  
wrote:

> In all civilized thought systems, religion, science, philosophy,  
> mathematics, etc, it is said that there is no such thing as Chaos
> as an inherent force of Nature.  Chaos is really just an illusion
> of the unenlightened mind.  Look deep enough and Chaos vanishes.
>

If it does exist, then Forth would be Froth, wouldn't it?  ;-)

Is entropy a form of chaos?  Sorry, it seems you capitalized Chaos.
Is Entropy a form of Chaos?  ...

I'm assuming that you're capitalizing Chaos and Nature to represent
a higher level, abstract concept, sometimes personified or treated
as a self-aware or powerful force, somewhat like when someone
capitalizes Faith or Truth in the context of religion or scientific
fact.

> But, I assert that there is such a thing as Chaos.  For instance,
> there is no such thing as perfect data.  There may be not such a
> thing as perfect hardware or perfect software.  There is no excuse
> for not watching the road.  The map is not the territory.

...

> So, when using Forth, expect the unexpected.

Does that expectation of the unexpected in regards to Forth actually
have something to do with Chaos or is this a design issue with Forth?
e.g., your failure to implement safety checks, therefore your program
crashed spectacularly.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33477

On 9/20/14 12:32 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 13:54:34 -0400, Jason Damisch
> <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> In all civilized thought systems, religion, science, philosophy,
>> mathematics, etc, it is said that there is no such thing as Chaos
>> as an inherent force of Nature.  Chaos is really just an illusion
>> of the unenlightened mind.  Look deep enough and Chaos vanishes.
>>
>
> If it does exist, then Forth would be Froth, wouldn't it?  ;-)
>
> Is entropy a form of chaos?  Sorry, it seems you capitalized Chaos.
> Is Entropy a form of Chaos?  ...
>
> I'm assuming that you're capitalizing Chaos and Nature to represent
> a higher level, abstract concept, sometimes personified or treated
> as a self-aware or powerful force, somewhat like when someone
> capitalizes Faith or Truth in the context of religion or scientific
> fact.
>
>> But, I assert that there is such a thing as Chaos.  For instance,
>> there is no such thing as perfect data.  There may be not such a
>> thing as perfect hardware or perfect software.  There is no excuse
>> for not watching the road.  The map is not the territory.
>
> ...
>
>> So, when using Forth, expect the unexpected.
>
> Does that expectation of the unexpected in regards to Forth actually
> have something to do with Chaos or is this a design issue with Forth?
> e.g., your failure to implement safety checks, therefore your program
> crashed spectacularly.

Except that it doesn't work that way. As Paul Bennett (who's whole 
business involves highly reliable systems) has repeatedly described, 
Forth programs are exceptionally easy to test thoroughly, and hence have 
a reputation for being extremely reliable.

I had many years of experience using native Forths before using Forth on 
OSs. With a native Forth, the programmer (programmer*s*, if it's a team) 
have complete control of the software, and since it is so simple, they 
can test it thoroughly. Introduce a host OS like Windows and all bets 
are off. There's too much code with too many authors, and no adequate 
test procedures. I remember when Windoes NT came out, it was reputed to 
be the most secure Windows ever. It was released with over 65,000 known 
bugs. Chaos.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33479

On Saturday, September 20, 2014 4:23:05 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:

> As Paul Bennett (who's whole business involves highly reliable systems)
> has repeatedly described, Forth programs are exceptionally easy to test
> thoroughly, and hence have a reputation for being extremely reliable.

I just wanted to mention that I have the deepest respect for this.

Jason

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33483

Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:

[%X]

>> Does that expectation of the unexpected in regards to Forth actually
>> have something to do with Chaos or is this a design issue with Forth?
>> e.g., your failure to implement safety checks, therefore your program
>> crashed spectacularly.
> 
> Except that it doesn't work that way. As Paul Bennett (who's whole
> business involves highly reliable systems) has repeatedly described,
> Forth programs are exceptionally easy to test thoroughly, and hence have
> a reputation for being extremely reliable.

Thanks for the mention Elizabeth.

> I had many years of experience using native Forths before using Forth on
> OSs. With a native Forth, the programmer (programmer*s*, if it's a team)
> have complete control of the software, and since it is so simple, they
> can test it thoroughly. Introduce a host OS like Windows and all bets
> are off. There's too much code with too many authors, and no adequate
> test procedures. I remember when Windoes NT came out, it was reputed to
> be the most secure Windows ever. It was released with over 65,000 known
> bugs. Chaos.

Interestingly, I am currently reading a book called "The Art of Readable 
Code (Theory and Practice)" by Dustin Boswell and Trevor Fouches. Most of 
their code examples are in the C, C++, Java, Python and HTML languages. Just 
got to the section on generating tests.

One of the reasons native Forth on a processor is so good is just because 
you have complete control. Additionally, Forth programmers are not having to 
keep in mind the need to use the "Safe Sub-set" of a language. You can begin 
with a small, fully understood and very basic environment and grow it to the 
needs of the application. You do not rely on one humungus compiler but on a 
tool-box full of very small and simple compilers that are selected for the 
precise purpose for which they were created. If you do not have a compiler 
specific to your needs it is often just a small effort to creat what you do 
need.

When it comes to testing we do not usually have to sit down and create even 
more code to accomplish a test of what we have just written. We may do 
eventually but it is not necessary at that instant it was written as we can 
just put the values on the stack and run the code. I go much further by 
insisting on Static Analysis, Functional Testing and Limits Testing for my 
code (the Limits Test is a concerted effort to get code to mis-behave if it 
will). By this end, it will keep the chaos portion in the hardware (random 
failures) rather than in the software (which tend to be systematic 
failures).

I am presenting a paper at this years EuroForth on the subject of "High 
Integrity Systems Component Oriented Development Environments" where I will 
go further into the techniques I use. Perhaps I will see you in Majorca.

-- 
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET.....<email://Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy.............<http://www.hidecs.co.uk>
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1235-510979
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33478

On Saturday, September 20, 2014 3:28:48 PM UTC-7, Rod Pemberton wrote:

> If it does exist, then Forth would be Froth, wouldn't it?  ;-)

:^)


> Is entropy a form of chaos?  Sorry, it seems you capitalized Chaos.
> Is Entropy a form of Chaos?  ...

I suppose that Entropy could follow down a path of either Chaos or Order, depending on the observer and the frame of reference.  

> I'm assuming that you're capitalizing Chaos and Nature to represent 
> a higher level, abstract concept, sometimes personified or treated
> as a self-aware or powerful force, somewhat like when someone
> capitalizes Faith or Truth in the context of religion or scientific
> fact.

In this instance I am being a bit poetic.  Nature could mean different things to different people, and also Chaos could mean different things to different people.  I'm not necessarily saying that they are intellegent. 
 
> Does that expectation of the unexpected in regards to Forth actually
> have something to do with Chaos or is this a design issue with Forth?
> e.g., your failure to implement safety checks, therefore your program
> crashed spectacularly.

If somebody passes me a chunk of spam, was it my fault for not catching it, or their fault that they passed it?  It's not a design issue with Forth but an design feature of Forth that Forth is flexible enough such that it's is very improbable to code oneself into a corner with it, and that one might be able to respond to the unexpected with using it. 

If I expect the unexpected, and don't expect the world to be completely orderly, then I won't be as upset when it isn't and I need to adjust my code accordingly.  Well its a working hypothesis.  :^)

Jason 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33499

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 19:57:55 -0400, Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com>  
wrote:
> On Saturday, September 20, 2014 3:28:48 PM UTC-7, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 13:54:34 -0400, Jason Damisch  
>> <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> So, when using Forth, expect the unexpected.
>>
>> Does that expectation of the unexpected in regards to Forth actually
>> have something to do with Chaos or is this a design issue with Forth?
>> e.g., your failure to implement safety checks, therefore your program
>> crashed spectacularly.
>
> It's not a design issue with Forth but an design feature of Forth that
> Forth is flexible enough such that it's is very improbable to code
> oneself into a corner with it, and that one might be able to respond
> to the unexpected with using it.

If it's improbable, then why do you still expect it?

> If I expect the unexpected, and don't expect the world to be completely
> orderly, then I won't be as upset when it isn't and I need to adjust my
> code accordingly.  Well its a working hypothesis.  :^)

It would seem to me you don't need to do so, i.e., waste or time or
mindset to expect something which is unlikely to occur according to you.

> If somebody passes me a chunk of spam, was it my fault for not catching
> it, or their fault that they passed it?

If you did notice it, would you pass it on too, just as they did?  ...

It's very possible someone may want the spam.  Are you going to let it
go to waste by simply not passing it and keeping it in front of you?
Do you really want to see it sitting there for the entire meal?  Do you
really want smell it if you don't like it?  I suspect you'd pass it too.

I've never tasted Spam, but have smelled it cooking.  A friend in college
would eat it fried with rice on occasion.  It smells like bologna and  
bacon.
It's made of pork shoulder and ham.  Pork shoulder, usually just labelled
"pork," is a primary ingredient in hot dogs, bologna, "Vienna" sausages.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33574

On Saturday, September 20, 2014 7:57:57 PM UTC-4, Jason Damisch wrote:
> 
> I suppose that Entropy could follow down a path of either Chaos or Order, depending on the observer and the frame of reference.  
> 
You can go way down this rabbit hole. The net entropy of the Universe is constant. According to Kozyrev, when it decreases in one place it increases everywhere else due to a change in time flow. This time flow is a dimension of torsion in the physical vacuum.

Torsion transfers information, not energy. The metaphysical folks call it "subtle energy" but it is neither matter nor energy because it traverses the universe instantaneously. Torsion in the physical vacuum is the stuff of mind and consciousness. It provides a physical basis for Rupert Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields (you gotta Google this) and Penrose and Hameroff's quantum consciousness. Entropy turns out to be one half of basis of existence. The other part is called syntropy or negentropy. It's caused by this quantum entangled holographic multiverse, a kind of entrained cosmic consciousness, that's been relegated to the backwaters of religion due to anti-supernatural bias in the sciences.

But the details are emerging bit by bit, each a crack in the dike holding back an ocean of knowledge. When the mathematical and scientific foundations are in place, technology will obliterate the boundary between scientific and spiritual thought and the world will be a lot better off.

But back to observation determining outcome, as it does in quantum entanglement, chaos can have a quantum decoherence aspect to it. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33519

  Chaos and order are mutually exclusive. Neither can exist with the other.
 Imperfect data may be chaotic, but imperfect systems are not chaos.
 If there were chaos, it would as well be nullity, there being no one to notice.



On Saturday, September 20, 2014 10:54:37 AM UTC-7, Jason Damisch wrote:
> In all civilized thought systems, religion, science, philosophy, mathematics, etc, it is said that there is no such thing as Chaos as an inherent force of Nature.  Chaos is really just an illusion of the unenlightened mind.  Look deep enough and Chaos vanishes.
> 
> 
> 
> But, I assert that there is such a thing as Chaos.  For instance, there is no such thing as perfect data.  There may be not such a thing as perfect hardware or perfect software.  There is no excuse for not watching the road.  The map is not the territory.
> 
> 
> 
> So, when using Forth, expect the unexpected.
> 
> 
> 
> Jason

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33521

On 9/22/2014 11:16 PM, Whammo wrote:
>    Chaos and order are mutually exclusive. Neither can exist with the other.
>   Imperfect data may be chaotic, but imperfect systems are not chaos.
>   If there were chaos, it would as well be nullity, there being no one to notice.
>
>
>
> On Saturday, September 20, 2014 10:54:37 AM UTC-7, Jason Damisch wrote:
>> In all civilized thought systems, religion, science, philosophy, mathematics, etc, it is said that there is no such thing as Chaos as an inherent force of Nature.  Chaos is really just an illusion of the unenlightened mind.  Look deep enough and Chaos vanishes.
>>
>>
>>
>> But, I assert that there is such a thing as Chaos.  For instance, there is no such thing as perfect data.  There may be not such a thing as perfect hardware or perfect software.  There is no excuse for not watching the road..  The map is not the territory.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, when using Forth, expect the unexpected.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jason
>


Chaos is *not* disorder, it is not randomness... at least not in the 
sense of chaos theory.  It is about systems that are complex enough that 
a very small change in initial conditions can create an arbitrarily 
large change in conditions some time later.

Weather is a chaotic system.  No matter how many measurements you make 
about today's weather you can't predict reliably the weather just two 
weeks out.

There is evidence that nearly all systems are chaotic.  We think we have 
good descriptions of them but if we observe them long enough we find 
they do unexpected things.

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33523

Jason's original post is quite controversial, isn't it? :-)

"Chaos is really just an illusion of the unenlightened mind.  
Look deep enough and Chaos vanishes. "

I'm sure that's true; we just don't have the ability/tools to be 
able to break down complex systems enough to understand them 
fully.

"But, I assert that there is such a thing as Chaos."

No, there isn't! Just things that we don't yet understand!

"For instance, there is no such thing as perfect data."

Really? I can show you a number of programs that I have written 
that do have perfect data. They have *exactly* the data that they
need, and they do *exactly* what they were purposed to do.

"There may be not such a thing as perfect hardware or perfect 
software."

Depends entirely on who is evaluating the hardware/software, and 
what *their* definition of "perfect" is. *That's the issue*. 
Define "perfect" appropriately in the context of a particular 
application (either hardware of software) and it almost certainly
won't apply to the next. However, "good enough", if shown to be 
applicable across a number of projects, may subsequently transpire
to be the most appropriate definition of "perfect" (for example, 
if you are a project manager or team leader and counting the hours
and pennies, but not if you are a software/hardware engineer).

It's entirely subjective, and therefore, largely meaningless.

"So, when using Forth, expect the unexpected."

The engineer in me forces me to interpret this statement at 
face-value. If it were acceptable to expect the unexpected when 
using *any* computer language, then I would posit that the 
language is bugged!

1 1 + .
2 ok

See? That's expected. All is well.

1 1 + .
44196821 ok

"Honey, fetch me another compiler! This one's busted!"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33540

On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 12:28:54 AM UTC-7, Mark Wills wrote:
> Jason's original post is quite controversial, isn't it? :-)
> 
> "Chaos is really just an illusion of the unenlightened mind.  
> Look deep enough and Chaos vanishes. "
> 
> I'm sure that's true; we just don't have the ability/tools to be 
> able to break down complex systems enough to understand them 
> fully.
> 
> "But, I assert that there is such a thing as Chaos."
> 
> No, there isn't! Just things that we don't yet understand!

Mark --- you are being rather Newtonian in your thinking --- now, thanks to Quantum Theory, we know that we will never be able to "break down complex systems enough to understand them fully." So solly!
 
> "For instance, there is no such thing as perfect data."
> 
> Really? I can show you a number of programs that I have written 
> that do have perfect data. They have *exactly* the data that they
> need, and they do *exactly* what they were purposed to do.

Fortunately, most programming doesn't involve Quantum Mechanics --- we can write programs that do exactly what they were purposed to do --- and, if we expect to get paid, we have to.

> "There may be not such a thing as perfect hardware or perfect 
> software."
> 
> Depends entirely on who is evaluating the hardware/software, and 
> what *their* definition of "perfect" is. *That's the issue*. 
> Define "perfect" appropriately in the context of a particular 
> application (either hardware of software) and it almost certainly
> won't apply to the next. However, "good enough", if shown to be 
> applicable across a number of projects, may subsequently transpire
> to be the most appropriate definition of "perfect" (for example, 
> if you are a project manager or team leader and counting the hours
> and pennies, but not if you are a software/hardware engineer).
> 
> It's entirely subjective, and therefore, largely meaningless.

Well, I have worked as a machinist. We have tolerances --- you are never just given a dimension --- you are always given the dimension "plus or minus" a certain amount of tolerance. This system works quite well. This is largely the breakthrough from the "craftsmanship" of the Middle Ages to the "manufacturing" of the Industrial Age. In the Middle Ages, nobody knew about tolerancing, so they just provided a dimension. Depending upon the skill of the craftsman, the quality of his tools, etc., he could get anywhere from "pretty close" to "in the ballpark" --- but no craftsman was "perfect" in the sense that he hit the dimension so close that there was no measurable error (that was true not just in the Middle Ages, but is still true today; no workman is perfect) --- because of this, it was impossible to manufacture products --- the parts varied a lot, and nobody knew how much they varied, so a lot of filing and hammering was required to put them together to make the product. Now, thanks to the concept of tolerancing, we can be assured that the parts will fit together, and we routinely manufacture products on an assembly-line. Our tools are more precise now, but that is not really the point --- even given the imprecise tools available in the Middle Ages, it would have still been possible to have manufacturing --- but only if the machinists understood the concept of tolerancing. Also, you have to have a measuring device that is at least twice as accurate as your smallest tolerance. Quality measuring devices are actually more important than quality tools. If your tools only produce parts that are in tolerance 10% of the time, you can throw 90% of your parts into the scrap-metal pile and you can still have manufacturing --- but if your measuring device lacks the required accuracy, then you don't know what to keep and what to scrap, and so you can't have manufacturing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33573

On Saturday, September 20, 2014 1:54:37 PM UTC-4, Jason Damisch wrote:
> 
>But, I assert that there is such a thing as Chaos.  For instance, there is no such thing as perfect data.  There may be not such a thing as perfect hardware or perfect software.  There is no excuse for not watching the road.  The map is not the territory.
> 

I other words, "shit happens". Forth is less forgiving of sloppy programming than other languages, but that could be considered a plus. When using Forth, you're forced to not suck. Not that it always works.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web