if &#198 and &#230 ??

if Æ
or
and
if œ
to denote xNess – sensasion – of elements?

ie

if x as the if of X element
if œ or Æ x as the if of sensing x – the aesthetics of x focused?

ie the operation of aesthetics, or sensing X as X abstract-yet-abstractable-but-IS-actually-X-in-between-Y-and-w/a-that-IS-forNow-X-sensing-X-with-if-hence-other_time-can-BE-an-:@:Ness

if &#192 X -> a_()x -> &#230 Y
can also be
if œ or Æ ? (as in the sensation of being an if?)

hummm…

i think am making it more complicated than it should be really..

the object of non functional butt and but abstract

of abstract beyond abstraction?

Am watching this rather intelligent guy:
http://media.ccc.de/browse/congress/2013/30C3_-_5526_-_en_-_saal_2_-_201312291600_-_how_to_build_a_mind_-_joscha.html#video&t=3356

http://media.ccc.de/browse/congress/2014/31c3_-_6573_-_en_-_saal_2_-_201412281130_-_from_computation_to_consciousness_-_joscha.html#video

talking in ccc.de of 2014 and 2013

I’d urge people to check his talk themselves, so no direct summing etc here.. Not now anyway..

My misreading(??) is that he seems to think the universe – perhaps life – as a set of computational functions, and these functions do certain things he outlines.
On the other side
He seems to say that the universe of has no difference between what we might call organic and representation/simulation.
However
he also makes at some places inferences that deride dealing with the mapping of the world rather than the world itself.

While I think these are interesting views, and communicatively places, I also think that yes, if we want to get beyond our own mapping – ie binarism that makes a map – then the way to do it is precisely via being in the knowing that we know not of the future, and if we are serious about simulation and represntation then abstract – not abstraction – is the way.

The sense of redness, is like 2ness and Xness which are when 2 is allowed to be 2 rather than 2 apples or even 2 + y = x 2 if 2 when its:
if 2
and/or (am still learning re that)
if ae 2
(when ae = œ or Æ ? Perhaps none of these?)

[my?) (a?] desire as a radiator

search sequence?

0 as a none replicating time-space holderNess between energy emitting elements?
z aggravatedNess of an energy emitting element?
x gather-dispenceNess of energy emitting element?
(~|~) an energyNess in between gather-dispenceNess, holderNess and aggravatedNess?

{
if
0 (~|~)
|
|
(zx):(xz)
         |
         |
(~|~) 0
}

if [search] x [?]

if x
[once we are exposed to if x we encounter reading it, time(of reading), times(once,twice,etc), the linking(?) with other stuff we are encountering with, and telling about it.

Could be said that this is True to Any encounter. Yes. However, not any encounter is Made for that, and with that in mind.

An if search string is being made in this way Through being a search sequence.

A person can decide to not recall the encounter, and not count the reading, for example. However, that has just happened and gbecause if x is maDE of abstract sense of incompletNess – eg we need time to either accept the non then part, and once we do the range of if x opens up – eg if x if x if x if y, etc. – I think we can say that indeed there is a certain living sequence here that makes itself up. Living in the sense of generating new energy, new sequences. New rhythms..

is this a “law” or just what is happening?

or

am i describing some sort of an axiom..?

if bi.ble narratives have a no?

Recently have noticed that my mind pays attention to stuff like:
egypt bans exodus because they claim everyone knows god parted the sea
or
some controversy(???!!!) regarding a “real” jesus – ie one says there is a secular real, the other claims the real is not the real of the one that views it secularly, and my mind goes – but its just a story anyway.
or
another twist in the narrative of noah where a depiction of prophets over-rides freedom to depict something while charging people to view it, hence restricting others’ freedom, no?
or
Perhaps more intriguingly, despite the fact that these bans stem from areas and countries where the majority’s skin colour is darker in than simply tanned, the fact that the main characters depicting these narratives are from a lighter skin shade, doesn’t seem to bother the questions of narratives.
(This is an issue as I have met people who told me they could not believe in jesus because they were told his skin was, in their words – white – and it can not be that the son of god has a light skin..

HOWEVER

For me there is a different question to bother with in this context..

if x

You see, in terms of logic, we can say that if a is smaller/less than b then we get y

BUT

with if search sequences, it seems much more arbitrary

if x

the x can be anything.
the recursion is based on a range of personal to cultural and back sensations and sensibilities.

one can say

if x(1)
(if x)1
if x if x if x if x if x if x if x if x if x if x if x if x if x if x if x if x if x if x if x if x if x if x if x if x if x if x if x if x if x if x if x if x if x if x

Unlike a logical statement we do not have an exact form to argue over, hence it can decent into a power-based play – theoretically.
In that sense, it resembles the questions of narratives, and in some ways this goes to show that I have not moved on. 🙁 For example,
if x as jesus being a prophet
if y as jesus being a god
if z as jesus being a story

However, what am forgetting that unlike the jesus story, or any other, the if is very near. The reminder of the if making is very much a part of the sequence.
Even if we made an IfNot x it would be a very visible and criticable part of the sequence, no?

However, we are still kind of seem to get stuck in the notion of power.
Say am doing if y.
What is there to check my if y from the if y point of view?
if y’s own sensation/vibe within a given organism/entity?
ie
an entity might go:
if y? “oh, them must be x!”
or
if y? “how about if n?”
or
if y? if y? if y? if y? if y? if y? if y? if y? if y?
or
if y? if y bang if z? if (y/z:z/y)

or am i wrong?

i mean.. if we look at a finnobacci set 1,1,2,3,5,8,13, etc. – that too is dependent upon an entity that links with it as is if x..

hummm…

not sure if am confusing more or less than confused.. or just fused? 😉

if bmn,mngj.,b,/jkfsn,/v NOT?

if gtrjkl’jkl’jkl <<<<<< gtrjkl'jkl'jkl are my fingers hitting the keyboard blindly >>>>>>>>
if hhjkmghjk;frkj <<<<<< hhjkmghjk;frkj are my fingers hitting the keyboard blindly >>>>>>>>

check:

if (hit6)'(hit3)'(hit3)

or

if gtrjkl’jkl’jkl – gtrjkl’jkl’jkl
if – gtrjkl’jkl’jkl
if – (gtrjkl’jkl’jkl)2 –

and

if hhjkmghjk;frkj

if n0 x a? 0.2??

if aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa – x
if aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa – – x
if x
if x
if – –
if aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa2

if n0 x a?

if x
if a
if (a:x)(x:a)
if (a2:x2)
if2 (x2:a2)
if x:a
if a:x
if a:a:a:a:a:a
if x:x:x
if (a:a:a:a:a)(x:x:x)
if (a:a:a:a:a):(x:x:x)
if (x:x:x)(a:a:a:a:a)
if ax – xa

if ##1.1a?

if – – x
if — x
if – – x
if x
if x —
if x – –
if x –
if x
if x – x —
fi x

(fi x) (jf x)
————-
(if x) (fi x)

if –2 x2

no formal but language = if a b?

now.. a formal language, as far as i can tell, is made of some sort of rules-set that are non negotiable for that particular language.
Lets say that in our language vouls are dead. w wnt t tlk lk tht nd thts th nd f t. k?
If we had a different rule to add, or use, the language will be said to be different.
So called natural languages have, to an extent, evolving and negotiable rules which, even by altering them, the language is still sort of there.

From these points of view, I wonder what are the if sequences and possible language/s from them. Search languages? IDK.. Anyhow.. Am not sure they can be said to have formal rules.

In a sense an if search sequence if like me standing in space, somewhere between andromeda and the milky-way or slightly bellow, 😉 , and am telling anyone passer by: “if a b”. and sure there might be some odd and off chance that someone will pick it up and go: Lambda table bus. In which case I’d probably go on with if a b based on feeling currently the lambda is very fascinating but of a different frequency than if a b. Say I might then go on with the If loop and maybe at some point the if a b will fold via sheer repetition and/or boredom.
In which case I might go into a different one, say:
if a a a <> a a b
Now suppose someone heard it and decided to go:
<> b
ie without the if.
I might go bang with the initial sequence, like:
if a a <><> a a bb

Suppose that guy got a bit angry on the account of the bang, and she might say:
why did you do that??!!

I could say why, from a range of felt-like-it to some if search sequence thinking. However, even if the arguments have not been picked up by her, and she went on with <> <> b as a sort of loop, we could still link up based on the abstracts being of a same frequency.
Indeed, come to think of it, I think if the initial person used x and y of the lambda, they could be of the same frequency as well..

I think the interest in this illustration is that we are talking about abstract – not abstracted – sensations. Hence the language is not formal, not of signs, but of ranges. Not of communication but of sharing.. or of shareness..

to do with cat not miau theories?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-well-founded_set_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_set_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivariant_map
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetric_monoidal_category
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe_(mathematics)

probably some links i wanted to place are currently missing..

Noticed, for example, the cosmos theory.. I think its interesting because indeed it feels – when doing stuff with sequences – that these are like stars and planets and galaxies etc..

(a sizeable inference – but hey, that’s why am interested in the cosmos and universe metaphors..)

slavework detection?

ok.. say you write some fab app for apple ios. do you know instantaneously that your fab code will be run on devices made by slaves?
Now, say you decided apple is too soaked by slave work to even bother and decided to skip slaving yourself to google’s android, so develop a fab app for firefoxOS.
Lets say that we ignore for a few mins firfox’s dances with foxxcom – or whatever their name is, the company tha6t solved suicide in its ranks by building a net to catch the people who jump..

Now, say we past all these Other technical issues and you still rather fancy writing a fab app – how do you go about considering running it on free devices? No chance at current cultural frequencies.
However – say you only fancy running it on devices made by non-slaves. You might not mind prostitutes for the time being – as in people who laboured on the devices but didn’t really want to do it if they could have had the free choice – but fancy opting to the non radical option of running your code on a slavefree devices.

Slave work free?

No slaves were used to make this device?

Are we willing to Pay for such devices?

Should we need to Pay for such devices?

Questions..

However, lets remain with fab app and its code.

One could take the binary option. You could set a database of slaved devices, match the device name to database and give a message ” no way am i running on your device – slave owner!” when device name matches a slaved tagged product on the database.

Another option, I think, could be a rather more incremental and shady one. You could say something like, Hey did you know your device is slaved?
Whichever the reply, the following question is what the person is going to – or already – doing about it.
Maybe they need help saving for a device that isn’t slaved?
Maybe they want to join people who fancy making Free devices?
Maybe they were not aware of the slave issue?
Maybe they are very busy and rather fancy helping others to do stuff about slave issue?
Maybe they think that slave issue deserves a cultural process of questioning rather than ad-hoc superhero-wonna-bes taking actions by themselves?
Maybe they really couldn’t care less?
Maybe they are prostitutes that feel better having slaves?
Maybe they just fancy a conversation about the issue because they currently have no idea what to think of it?
Maybe, a very possible maybe, there are other maybe’s not here..

Point being, is that initially, I was thinking, Yes, yank the app off from all that do slaves.. (even if my own device does it. Am not proud of it, but that is the truth.)

Then, it seemed childish, binary, harsh and most of all – cultivating exactly the sort of stuff it attempts to disown – violent linking between people. If am saying effectively: if we disagree then fookoff – then am being violent, even if it is peace that am seeking.

no?

— if –?? x y not

if – x
– if – x
if – x
if – – x
if y
if y – –

now this can get pretty complicated indeed, and perhaps I should go through with it.. hower, now am interested in the / frictions..

What happens with stuff like:

if – x
if – x

is it / none?
is the a None that isn’t a 0?
is it a None that Is a 0 but not in a range?
If so – then why bother?
Perhaps the Friction is of a different kind here? (ie the sq root? as in:
if x2:(-)2 ? )

Or perhaps the sq root is not a friction? (I rather think it is.. But might be not of a range type friction.. However, this seems too algebraic, the sq root, it deals with numbers, not with an actual friction as the / range does.. Perhaps we need to get a different kind of friction here that is None algebraic?)
Lets see.. we have 2 x coming together at the same time and they are both the same as one another, an exact copy of one another – but more that one..
Perhaps what is happening here is that they are forming a none frictive link that offers a possible frictionless division in the future?
Perhaps this is the operation of –
de-linking link of none spacial but time only dimension?
in a sense this is like a link-interval operation because the link itself is on none and none will happen to It when undone?
hence perhaps its an (-/)of an x kind where x is n of numbers?

hummm…

what might be the difference between links and frictions or

am i conflating again??!!

if –
if x
if y
if /
(aHAa!! i c.. friction is inside the link!! friction is the question of the link type no??)

eg
if -x
if -y
we get [if -2xy0/yx] as the link is a bang that might come as xy or yx with a 0 determined friction.

BUT

lets say we have a link of:
if x-y (just to make life simple to begin with). The friction is in the – interval.
Hence we can have a friction of 0 to 1 range (pending on the size of x and y) when x is before y in the sequence.
to make the link:
[if x-y01/] no need for the yx anymore cos we know x is before y)

Now we can make stuff like linking frictions without x and y!! no?? check:

if 01/
if 0/
gives:
if 00/1/ (ie the 2 0s go boom and friction possible value of to1 is a single)
contrast with:
if 0/
if 24/
this will give an if frictive sequence of:
if 0/24/

so now we can have a frictive link of:
if 00/1/24/
its an elaborated interval indeed, but interval ARE creative precisely because they are elaborated, no?

—>> or should i not bother with such thoughts??

links as interval matching sets..?

if x
if y
if –
if (x) — (y)
if (y) — (x)
if (x) —— (y)
when and how x + y might link is interval based, no?

lets put all 3? (top to bottom for now)
{if (x2y — yx —- y)}

if —
if —-
if — x
if — y

(from bottom)

if yx
or
if –2-yx

How x and y link is based on the intervals in the sequence. eg if -x and if -y where x y are on the same interval spot in the sequence – then they will bang head-on, etc..