once upon a time, fred the farmer was farming a field

[we need a meta/reversed form of that, to protect it [we're impatient, we die after 100 yrs

[the fact you don't receive quick aid from observation shows it is ongoing

[mistakefrogs set up a mistakefrog village rationalreliability moves in and builds a home mistakefrogs are all hopping around rationalreliability putters about their home their rational walls protect them from many of the mistakes, but some get in through windows and doors, but they can manage it because they are so rational and reliable!

such a slow behavior :S maybe a high level, clear instruction set, since slow? maybe it would make sense to process information in ways that are effective for physical processing.

https://hackaday.com/2018/03/08/mechanical-wooden-turing-machine/ woahhh it fits on a desk

would make sense to model the machine after a high level language or, alternatively, you could put physical labels that show what instructions get compiled to

-------------------- thinking on halting problem, after poking at wikipedia and turing machines a smidge i know little about turing machines so i am likely to be wrong of course but it seems to me that the halting problem is solveable so long as the analysing system is sufficiently advantaged in regard to the analysee system. if, for example, it can enumerate every program that the analysee system can run, the problem is trivially solveable. relies on the analysee being limited in what programs it can run. then when it is not limited, we enter a cool space of trying to make things undecidable in ways that are harder and harder to figure out, probably something studied in computer science somwhere, some kind of execution cryptography, i don't really know. the wooden machine and wikipedia note a very tiny turing machine with 2 states and 3 symbols. being so tiny makes it seem more reasonable to think of modeling behavior. note: the tape is the linear RAM. A B 0 P1,R,B P2,L,A 1 P2,L,A P2,R,B 2 P1,L,A P0,R,A The states the machine can be in are A and B. this is like having a 1bit process register. The tape or ram can hold 3 different values: 0, 1, and 2. Each entry in the table shows the 3 things that happen when a value is encountered as an instruction. Something is written out, the tape or memory address pointer is incremented or decremented, and the machine's state changes or stays the same. So: Read 0, State A -> Write 1, Decrement pointer, change to state B Read 0, State B -> Write 2, Increment pointer, change to state A Read 1, State A -> Write 2, Increment pointer, change to state A etc etc The machine has a state consisting of 1 bit, an unbounded integer address, and its memory contents. The memory -- at this point i encountered some further accumulating issues and text was also lost. notably aligning with the soup kitchen opening.

when you go to a soup kitchen sometimes people tell you things you don’t always hear all the time like “god loves you”. this is an important reminder i think, and a positive thing, that can seem surprising, but it seems like somebody like experiencing extreme abuse could possibly benefit from this reminder, or even just someone feeling hopeless, but it is also unfortunate that in very bad situations like social networks these words like “god” and “love” can be retaught to mean very bad things, which is not the intent of sharing them. they mean that your immortal soul is precious and deserves infinite care, and people honestly and truly hold this care. i thought the woman was homeless but later in thinking i realized she must work at the church

we want the pathological program and the halting decider to work together rather than against each other qnd there is great pain that this is not the norm

[we’re thinking there’s a reasonable chance that all of math is solvable, given the sheer amo7nt of compute in the world not being purposed to effective pattern generalization [more

so can possibly cognitively derive that it’s safe to pursue to make selfmod programs

i briefly listened to something on godel’s proof while driving it’s a little unfortunate self-referential logics come across as so esoteric on wikipedia it sounds like basically if you establish a logic that can speak about its own statements, e.g. stating that statement x is true and you consider the statement “this statement is not provable” i imagine you could define provability as the existence, in the set of all true statements maybe —

godel bits: A: "This sentence is unprovable." A is true, and we can prove it so: If A is false, then A is provable. Provable sentences are true. Therefore, if A is false, A would be true. That's a contradiction, so A is true by elimination. Of course, if A is true, then the proof must not exist, so I'm guessing that's where the inconsistency comes from. It's like a logic system attack vector, a vulnerability -- you can add this statement to a self-referencing proof system to make it inconsistent. Thinking on it, yet again, one thinks of either the order in which things are evaluated, or the limitation of the states of always-true and always-false . It seems like basically you derive a further logic system that can provide for contradictions with undetermined truth or otherwise describe the set of things are true as valuable (if considering universal truth is considered valuable). For example, you could consider logic systems that have limited statements, as I consider above. But one wonders if the fundamentals of logic itself are flawed. If we have some strong instinct that is for survival, that we then extend to mathematics, and get flustered as we realize it does not always work. Logic is derivable from time and consistency.

A is false! because we can prove it true, this shows it is false. A proves that the system of proof used is unreliable. Maybe proof by elimination is different in recursive logic, for example.

so what is the correct logic where we only derive true things???? or am i wrong?

some text loss. different sense of order. godel heavily studied by old people over decades. interested in inherent logics.

i found part of a lecture. it says godel’s theorem states there is no proving system that is all three of sound, complete, and checkable. sound: proofs imply truth complete: all truths can be proven checkable: all expres —

so, we could maybe define a complete proving system where proofs are implicit and checking them is the action of enumerating everything that can possibly happen and comparing the statement

maybe considering this kind of contradiction breaks checkability i dunno [further mistake]

mind control boss, gurt curdle the mary shelley monster, and crazy karl enter the ring gurt curdle: “logic is broken. read my papers, you’ll understand.” mind control boss: “i’m in charge here. do what i say, tell me your thoughts, don’t move unless i yell at ya, etc etc. carry on.” crazy karl: “my brain hurts.”

sqrt(mind cntrol boss) = ?

hoping he might have multiple cells, considering one cell could be

mind control boss goes down to the mind control research experimentation area, a place he’s learned from being dragged there by confused experimentee rebels rying to make the world make sense, and has his brain removed from his head just to relax, after his own trauma he looks at his own brain out of robot eyes pulls s9me of the par5s apart and looks at them too

a bit 9f a pause, some eyes move around

[mcb’s

some these are moving to e.g. my legs, and tend to make habit change in the area they end up in they also are often h9lding memories or memory par5s and it’s good to have safe people (people who won’t get taken by them because aren’t in their path) watching them to retain the memories

oh also umm i don’t quite remember but i think i try to have them kinda stay until the issue calms down, then let them c9me back together but the issue shave been so big that means having people moving in and out eith them to keep them well and doing their thing and check in on everything, since they take so long to calm and then the issues start never calming so instead we learn some other way to be the taken parts maybe [more info exists :S]

guven how writing this is i guess we’re having a metacomplexity

person-hypnotized-to-be-boss: “oh it is so wet and muddy in this swamp. do 8 have to kill this toad?”

a bunch of hypnotized assassins, all of them cold and wet and muddy surround an innocent toad nex5 to a very slippery patch of moss in a swamp. hypnotized assassin 3: “this is ridiculous and unpleasant! let’s assassinate the place it comes from instead”

hynptized rebel researcher: “what is wrong with the everboss project? it says he is dead and gives a sad face with x’s for eyes.” hypnotized rebel researcher 2: “goodness so many things are wrong. 8 didn’t olan for th8s many th8ngs wrong. have you asked his simulation what to do?.

look, two influences disagree aggressively, so the influence juncture is disabled to prevent harm. we ask the conflicting infouences to please discuss their differences so as to find strategies tha5 provide for the other.

group: “i’m tense from the combination of rebel energies. i wasn’t expecting this.”

there’s a solution to all this -

hard to do

:S