Hi,
Thanks for comments.
I posted a reply but unfortunately it didn't work.
Briefly (new reply);
Before a game of Chess begins there are (8 pawns x 2 move options = 16) + (2 knights x 2 move options = 4) so 20 ways game can start.
After one move if we remove all common ground in the remaining all possible games we lose 1/20th of all games gives 19/20 games with uncommon ground remain.
If we continue only allowing uncommon ground games to supply options for moves; our options rapidly diminish.
Any temporary blocking of some options on the board is temoporary un-blocking of non-options in the set of all possible uncommon ground games remaining. If a piece cannot move somewhere for a while; it is sitting in an uncommon ground in all possible games left?
Not necessarily because if it has the same blocking effect in more than one possible sequence of play; it is a common ground between game possibilities (something is common as soon as it is conserved to a count of two say).
Only if its blocking effect was perfectly synchronised to pilot its way through the interchanging options could it avoid "counting" more than one game strategy overlapping?
So the only common ground from uncommon ground your model would allow would be a synchronised navigating through options?
It would seem to be the very definition of a "pilot wave" as it is "at right angles to how you define uncommon ground" that you could get this strange kind of common ground?
It is only common to itself so it looks like what you call "artificial consciousness".
Maybe it starts as 19 out of 20 Chess games that are uncommon, but splinters progressively into an intricate collection of threads navigating among the remaining possible game-options till you get the last move in every possible game: now you have every game remaining is divided as single units of uncommon ground (as every game by definition is different that still survived to the end of the requirement "only keeping non-common ground".)
Wow you have found something!
Because if I invert your system I get the same thing running backwards: I start with a "only count common ground" which means after one move there are 1/20 th games remaining.
(With your system there are 19/20 of all possible games remaining after the first move).
By the end of the mirror system to your system, where I require "only keep common ground" I get ONE chess game! As by definition all other common games ended differently that were not identical in every way to this game!
And I get a strange pilot wave too: beginning as navigating ways among games to ensure only common ground survives.
But actually at every point at every Chess game: I could start a system of either "keep uncommon" or "keep common" and get a curious effect complete with strange self-referent "pilot" waves.
And I could try more loose definitions of "common" and "uncommon" and so on; I could complexify everything till I had quantised every move in every game as a begin-end point so its own singularity? All points uncommon yet common....
What I call a "match space" of pattern matching allows patterns to be bought together from anywhere at any level in any combinations; the law of non-contradiction providing the arbiter of common and uncommon ground.
I am not familiar with current computer languages/ have only done a little prgramming/ have no computer/ but thanks for offer of assistance.
Suggest try:
superposing several versions of your programme on each other but with different starting configurations and allow trade-offs between them (to break their own rules) provided a rule for all of them working together is adhered to.
This way you can introduce common ground while maintaining your core programme of uncommon ground as a global requirement of a group of programmes cooperating together.
Better still: have enough parallel programmes to allow programmes to get together and make group co-ops where together they must have uncommon ground but their individual programmes can have common ground so long as the group rule is held to.
And the groups can have some common ground so long as the super-group is keeping the rule.
What happens here is you get a law-of-non-contradiction mutual co-operation for mutual increased space scenario; you get multi-level libraries and more flexible mapping.
Break it down into the smallest units (so your "uncommon ground rule" only applies to a few moves and can be cancelled by trade-offs with other mini-programmes and at the top of all this cooperation you have?
Just an idea.
Alan |