[e-lang] On a capability-structured universe

[stay]

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<john.carlson3 at sbcglobal.net> 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
>> e-lang at mail.eros-os.org
>> http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/e-lang
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> e-lang mailing list
> e-lang at mail.eros-os.org
> http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/e-lang
>



-- 
Mike Stay
stay at google.com