crazy years

In 1990 at 14, I finished designing a computer using Z80 and static RAM, EPROM, crystal oscillator, 8 LED display, etc. It took me ages to design the PCB on paper. In our city (Esfahan) they couldn't build two-sided PCBs. I was told it is impossible to build this PCB, it costs too much, etc. So I did not actually test it (I was sad). At 11-12 I used to write simple algorithms before starting to use my first computer in 1988-1989, then plotting polar curves, simple games that used Sprites and accessed video RAM, etc. The biggest barrier was there were virtually no manual books, and no Internet available back then to find the addresses to PEEK and POKE on C128. I had to wait years until I get a better home computer advanced enough to run C compiler that could finally run C programs because C had "function" s and I didn't have to write GOSUB for subroutines. Day and night, when not programming, I was designing CPUs on paper and trying to find an architecture and instruction set that is so minimal that a kid like me can build the CPU at home with minimal cost and simple equipment (the outcome resembled RISC). Later I decided to use a ready-made CPU instead, a Z80, which I mentioned above.

آیا وقت انتشار آن کار رسیده؟

نزدیک هستم به بسته شدن نهایی اش. هنوز یک تکه ی آخر مانده.

magnum opus

Socrates the debugger

 Socrates was the first debugger.

He used the same techniques in debugging. Instead of software code, he debugged software/info/concepts/beliefs/statements/thoughts.

It requires the same skill set: it takes time to develop this skill.

Philosophers refactor.

True Failure

The only true failure is death:

dying (or causing death).

(It is a/the hard failure.)

همه ی فلسفه ها ی اساسی، صحیح هستند

 درباره نظر کسی درمورد اشتباه در آمدن بیشتر حرفهای فلسفی و صحت علم

اتفاقا به نظر من حرف همه فیلسوفهای مهم و اساسی،  درست است. حتی با وجود تفاوت در نظرشون.

البته موارد اشتباهی هم هست اما کم  هستند.

اما بزرگتمایی که از اون اشتباهها میشه بیشتر از سهمشان است.

هنوز ارسطو حرفهایش و مفاهیمش برای ما مفید است و استفاده دارد.

هنوز روش سقراط را بکار میبریم، و راهنمای ما است و هر بال استفاده نمیکنیم، بدون آن در پرتگاه میفتیم.

دکارت خیلی چیزها کشف و اختراع کرد (مثلا سیستم مختصات که هندسه را متحول کرد، رشنالیتی، و خیلی چیزهای دیگر). و از اونها هر روز و هر ثانیه استفاده میکنیم. بله یکی دو اشتباه هم داشت (غده صنوبری). اتفاقا نوعا ارجاعش به اناتومی مغز، خیلی رویکرد درستی است.

بعضی نظرات دکارت حتی از شناخت فعلی ما هم جلوتر است و استفاده نشده در علم مدرن. مثلا نظریه رفلکس ها.

انباشت

در فلسفه بیشتر تجمع و انباشت فهم داریم. بجای رد شدن و جایکزین شدن.

اکر دستاوردهای فسفه های اساس را در نظر بکیریم، بخشهایی که رد و جایکزین میشوند کوچکتر از آن هستند که به نظر میرسد.

این یک نظر اوریجینال بنده است. رفرنسی ندارم و جای دیگر نمیخوانید. اینها را کسی نمیگوید ولی درست هستند. نظر من است و دیدگاه درست، این است.

این نگاه، بر خلاف درامایی است که پوپر نشان میدهد.

All philosophers were right

All philosophy has been, and “is” (now) correct

Mathematics and rulers

Mathematics is like a ruler using which you make straight walls.

This describes the relationship between axoims and reality. Also a good metaphor regarding it precision. Also about engineering-iness and tool-ness (external-ness) of it.

It is precise in itself, but we need to use it with imperfect objects.

It is for extending the mind. Thinking outside the brain.

 It is nit intuitive: in extends and enhances your mind, it is beyond your natural senses, perception, counting, etc. It is about what the brain cannot do very well, it extends what brain can do imperfectly.

It is about doing, changing. It is for adapting the world and reality to it, rather than the other way.

I can count, but Maths is not intuitive for me? Mathematics is extending where the brain stops.

Historically mathematics was created by Babylonians to help them in their engineering. (Obviously it is a simplification).

It can be used to predict and theorize and simulate too. But that’s secondary to engineering.

This hasty note is just a hardening and congealing what I said vocally.