Edited
September 17, 2004
Anticipatory Web
5/5/2004
4:31 PM
Peter (Krieg – Founder of Pilesystems Inc, Germany)
You are one of those who know how poly-logics fits into
these new notions of the Anticipatory Web. Many
of the issues that you talk about will be addressed in a K-12 curriculum for
the knowledge sciences..
The Pile system supports the need to select different viewpoints aggregated, in real time, together from a "pile" of substructural elements. Cute language!
We have found that the Orb (Ontology referential base) notional system will work naturally with Pile Core. This notational system is about not Pile, but is a measurement process that will produce Pile content.
The paradigm that has developed (Klausner, Bromberg, myself, you, and a few others) simplifies the underlying computational support for real time decision-making based on the strict separation between memory and anticipation. There is a core community of scientists working on this worldwide. We are calling the paradigm “stratified” and the computational support, “tri-level”.
As is being pointed out, by Sandy (below), this tri-level support requires a clean separation between data content and conjectured context. The confusion of the standards committees larger are by-passed once one sees how Sandy's CoreMachine works. Sandy already has operational systems to demonstrate. These systems are called core systems.
As my Orb tutorials have pointed out, it is always possible to recall precisely 100% of specific content, if fact Goggle does this over the entire World Wide Web. But the context should be managed separately because the problem in contextually precise recall is not properly defined in the current state of the art. There is a history that we need to make reference to in the curriculums.
The conjecture, often marginalized, is that contextual meaning may not be fully formalizable, and the part that is not formalizable may be the most important part. I call this the problem of closure.
This conjecture is readily understood by average people, but is resisted by many in the Semantic Web community.
The optimal means to encode and manipulate ASCII text strings (or any set of composites developed and represented as positional numbering systems) has been "discovered" and in this case a patent awarded to the innovator. But he missed completely the need to separate syntax from semantics. And perhaps the patent can be set aside because the discovery is a type of remembrance of concepts fully expressed in the foundations of mathematics.
This is a very wasteful business practice, but that is where we are at the present time. My position is that the encoding patent could be perhaps the most important IT patent since the early 1970s. But a patent that is not used by anyone is not very useful. To be used, the issue related to meaning has to be comprehended.
The key concept in the encoding patent is also a very simple expression of a core mathematical principle where-in a set of logical atoms can be given an order (as in any numbering system - including the Roman numbering system), and then linear strings of these logical atoms inherit an order using positional standards. Once one regards an ASCII string as a base 64 number, then one has a key-less hash table with no collisions and no empty containers. "Data base" search can then always be accomplished in n machine cycles where 2^n is larger than the number of records. (see my I-RIB tutorials). The PTO has declared that treating ASCII strings in this way is a property now owned by the inventory, and I wish to honor this by helping get contracts for systems that use key-less hash tables. But no economic structure now exists to do this.
It is noted that I have generalized the encoding patent to data structures composed of atoms that are not letters. This has been made public domain, by myself. The second generalization goes to generalFramework (gF) theory where sets of atoms are developed from the measurement of categorical equivalences. This set of atoms has an Orb structure, and this Orb structure can be mapped into Pile Core or into Core Talk.
Using the generalized encoding one of my students develop the notion of a Knowledge Operating System that can work within the band width limitation of a cell phone. In the near future, Ontologystream will meet MITi founder, Ken Ewell. Ken and I will design and develop the Readware Provenance ™ software.
We are deeply aware of the foundations of the Pile System. We have language that might be useful in developing branding that various specific markets will understand. I see "stratified theory" in almost everything that you have talked about with me in the past. In these two notes, I have sketched a much deeper and extensive theory of formative ontology.
http://www.bcngroup.org/beadgames/anticipatoryWeb/two-one.htm
http://www.bcngroup.org/beadgames/anticipatoryWeb/5.htm
Quantum mechanical terms will helps us also.
In this exact sense I must refer also to Sandy Klausner's work on CoreMachine.
These functional advances are nicely addressed. The cultural and learning aspects are addressed no were better then in the work of Acappella Software founder David Bromberg.
David's work is essential not only in terms of extending the work by Knowledge Management gurus but in tieing the issue of anticipation to the question of decision-making.
Again, we find that the concept of a National Educational Project on the "Knowledge Technologies" is the first step towards enabling the transition from IT to Knowledge Technology.
We are seeing a number of advances on machine based theories contextual information.
On your web site we use the language:
"Since the beginning of computing we have grown accustomed to an
approach which has restricted computing to closed mono-logic data processing
and inflexible, non-adaptive machines. So much have we gotten used to this
approach, that computer scientists seem to have stopped looking for
alternatives altogether, at least ever since “Artificial Intelligence” promised
to overcome these systemic restrictions. But AI never delivered a generic
adaptive computing platform and so we seem stuck with a technology that puts
the equivalent of the compute power of the Apollo Moon Landing program in every
compact car or laptop, yet has not brought us one inch closer to adaptive,
complex or “intelligent” computers…
Now the deadlock has been broken: An Israeli inventor has come up with
a completely novel computing architecture that has the potential not only to
change the paradigm, but also the entire IT industry dramatically. Unrelated to
all current technologies, the “Pile System” for the first time provides a
poly-logic platform able to overcome most if not all restrictions we encounter
in today’s computing.
The keyword is “polylogic”: This term, familiar to some from quantum computing, states that there are several different logic domains at work in a complex system at the same time (like a photon belonging to the logic domain of waves as well as to the logic domain of particles). There are good reasons to consider all living systems as polylogic, owing their capacity to adapt to unknown environments principally to their ability to integrate different logic domains (or logics). The Pile System implements this idea in a synaptic, polylogic architecture where every element is connected simultaneously in two or more separate structures. The Pile represents events not as symbols or numeric values, but exclusively as (complex) connections. Thus it holds no data in the traditional sense, it only records relations (as patterns of connections). Data are (reconstructed dynamically and in real time from these relations, similar to how a computer game works – and radically different from traditional computing which treats data like redundantly recorded movie frames. Since all relations in the Pile System are directly or indirectly connected and no containers are used, all relations representing data are fully visible and accessible as patterns. To illustrate how this works imagine two geometric structures that produce, when overlaid, a “Moiré” effect. In Pile, this emerging moiré would be the data…
Pile can be seen as a “data simulation system”, able to simulate not only any kind or type of data or program, but any describable order, standard, format and data structure. Operating exclusively with addresses as connections and not with data enables fluid navigation in virtual, dynamic and non-redundant data spaces: Pile’s storage requirements, although initially higher than those of traditional data recording systems, decrease with more input, resulting eventually in a compression effect. Due to its “virtual data” architecture, Pile has no restrictions (like data sizes, number of dimensions or complexity) other than those of its hardware environment. This opens vast opportunities for entirely new solutions and performance levels in various fields."
Paul Prueitt