Dear readers,
I am currently using the services of the provider wordpress.com for this blog. If I have to move in the future, I will keep all my blogs available via the following page:
https://lc-soc-lc.at/blogs.htm
Says
Yours, Christoph
Dear readers,
I am currently using the services of the provider wordpress.com for this blog. If I have to move in the future, I will keep all my blogs available via the following page:
https://lc-soc-lc.at/blogs.htm
Says
Yours, Christoph
Dear Friends of Realtime 3D,
Last year, I told you about the association, we had founded in July 2023 (“The Society”, see https://lc-soc-lc.or.at).
Then, we had some initial playing around with the Web3D Browser freeWrl and with the DIS protocol.
Now, we have to make the association more or less “official”, so we had to elect two people for the board of “The Society”.
Hence, we conducted our first extraordinary general assembly in 2024, last week on April 25th, and Wolfgang was confirmed as our first president (German “Obmann”). He agreed with my role as secretary + cashier (German “Schriftführer + Kassier”).
So, we will continue our experiments with Web3D and DIS, but we also had discussions about our future endeavors, maybe we want to focus more on the sector of (model) railways.
Have a nice week,
Yours Christoph
This little series of blog postings tries to discuss the topic of
The following blog postings are currently available within this series:
Please don’t be shocked. This posting will be about some philosophy.
This is not a blog posting about science of nature, nor about science of technology, it could even be interpreted as a religious posting.
Hence, this posting is a temporary contradiction (let’s say an exception according to Heisenberg) to my principle about keeping this blog an agnostic blog.
If you cannot accept this, then please ignore this posting 🙂 .
If I trace my writings back, then the topic of the layers of the universe comes up for the first time in my 10th booklet “On Life” in March 2018 (https://letztersein.com/kleine-religiose-buchlein/).
There I begin for the first time in the chapter “Spirit” to use the technique of the so-called “protocol stacks” to represent the concepts of spirit and matter in a diagram. I draw the “material” layers of a person “lower” and the “mental” layers of a person “higher”.
This is modeled after the protocol stacks we use in telecom and networking to represent the different layers of communication of computer systems.
In the 12th booklet “Mind – Senses – Body – Soul” and in the two blog postings mentioned,
https://letztersein.com/kleine-religiose-buchlein/
https://areasharpa.wordpress.com/2022/08/26/the-eight-four-layers-of-the-universe/
https://areasharpa.wordpress.com/2022/09/03/why-objects-and-interactions/
I will then explore this in greater detail.
In all of these writings I simply follow the heuristic approach that it is easily possible to identify INNER layers in all entities of the universe that are analog to each other – depending on the layer – so that all of these entities CAN INTERACT with each other within each layer.
Well, the concept of the “abstraction layer” as we know it from information technology leads us to the idea of these “inner layers”.
We can make this clear with a simple example:
I can get to know a person very concretely when we hug each other, this definitely affects “layer 0” (matter and physics), but can also – if feelings, emotions or other senses are involved – go up to “layer 1” of the sensual.
If you also think about it during a hug (that can also happen), then you are more of a “cerebral type”, but a hug can also penetrate into “layer 2” (for example now, when I write about it ).
On the other hand, when I listen to a person, talk to them or read their writings, then I experience this person primarily on “layer 2”, i.e. mentally, which corresponds to a higher level of abstraction or, you could also say, an additional indirection.
The lowest layer, “layer 0”, is always physics, which describes all interactions in the universe using the terms matter, energy and space-time (admittedly this is a blatant simplification of physics).
The layer of the sensual, which I put on the same level as the software on the Internet – in which we differentiate between 5 layers – I call either “layer 1” or “layer 1-5”.
Then only the spirit hovers above this, i.e. “layer 2” or “layer 6” (here it would perhaps be necessary to write an additional text again in order to differentiate more precisely: the “spirit” layer also applies to terms like ” intelligence”, “wisdom”, “mind”, and the like).
Well, the amazing thing about these models is that I put the software in our computers – and on the Internet – on a par with the human senses
If I put them on the same level, then that doesn’t mean that they are the same or equivalent to our human senses, but it just means that they can interact with our senses.
When modeling any protocol stack, only one of the layers can interact and communicate with another layer if it is on the same level as this one.
The matter of a stone cannot interact directly with my mind, because the matter of the stone lies in “layer 0” and my mind lies in “layer 2”.
In order to interact with the matter of a stone, my mind requires an IMAGE OF THE STONE provided by the senses. Only with this image of the stone can the spirit interact and give commands to my senses and my body so that they then interact directly with the material of the stone.
The Internet can also offer this “proximity effect of the senses”.
It’s not uncommon for me to hear someone ask: “Are you on server XY yet?” and I answer: “Yes, I’m already on the server”.
Am I REALLY there?
Of course not.
But my senses and the Internet provide my mind with an experience that feels to my mind like it’s there “on the server.”
In my opinion, that’s reason enough to put my senses and the Internet on the same level.
But wasn’t all of this just an attempt to simply “transfer” our perspective as network engineers and information engineers to the entire world?
Well, anyone who knows me knows that I like to think about things simply out of curiosity or just for the fun of it. That’s nothing reprehensible.
In this series of publications we wanted to try to generally represent the interactions between the objects of the universe using information technology methods.
You have to remember that information science is actually one of the very youngest sciences.
If you look at it historically, Newton’s laws were the first breakthrough in mechanics and thermodynamics, which probably had its industrial peak in the invention of the steam engine.
You could also put it – a little flippantly – like this:
Well, at the beginning of the 21st century we are experiencing the triumph of computer technology with the so-called “digitalization”, which is now finding its way into all, but really all, areas of daily life.
So is it any wonder that one is tempted to interpret the entire order of creation (or, as I say, the “layers of the universe”) from the perspective of information processing.
The transmission of information also has a long history in human use.
Information technology is therefore a very old thing that is inherent to humans, but it only reached its peak with the invention of the computer and modern information sciences.
So there’s nothing wrong with putting on your “nerd glasses” and looking at the entire world, the entire order of creation.
Means
Your Christoph
Well, so far I’ve only written about a “flat” universe, in which all objects in the information space are “next to each other”, even though they have protocol stacks of different heights.
Figure 1: “flat” universe
But now you could, for example, dismantle a person into its individual parts.
So instead of having “Joe (a human)” and “a stone” in our protocol stacks, we would have
“Joe (a human)”, consisting of “Joe’s parts (Joe’s limbs, Joe’s organs, Joe’s bones, Joe’s skin and hair, …….)” and “a stone”.
Each of these “sub” objects would have the “inner layers” within them, i.e. starting from matter, up to the senses and some of these parts would even have a “mental” layer (this probably only applies to the brain).
Figure 2: “Structured” universe (with “sub” objects)
But ALL interactions would be REALIZED (i.e. in a physical way) through material/energetic interactions in a space-time, although they can also be partially ABSTRACTED (interpreted) as senses or spirit.
Later more.
This little series of blog postings tries to discuss the topic of
The following blog postings are currently available within this series:
Please don’t be shocked. This posting will be about some philosophy.
This is not a blog posting about science of nature, nor about science of technology, it could even be interpreted as a religious posting.
Hence, this posting is a temporary contradiction (let’s say an exception according to Heisenberg) to my principle about keeping this blog an agnostic blog.
If you cannot accept this, then please ignore this posting 🙂 .
OK, when I talk about some INNER layers of each entity within the universe, then I mean this in a close relation to the terms of SOFTWARE INTERFACES and SOFTWARE PROTOCOLS.
Also, if you are an IT technician or an IS scientist, then all this will not be new at all.
You know it under the term of an
Since the whole information technology relies on the exchange of electro-magnetic energy, hence any computer system could – theoretically – be described by Maxwell’s equations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations).
However, describing each and every software by the electromagnetic waves that are created by that software, would be a kind of “mission impossible”.
The electromagnetic waves that cross the integrated circuits of a computer system, back and forth, are not really an appropriate vehicle to describe the function of a computer system in a way that could be understood by a single human being.
Even the calculation of such a simple equation like 1 + 1 = 2 would involve hundreds, thousands of electro-magnetic waves that would have to be considered.
We need to reduce the complexity of our description (we want to explain it to managers 😉 ).
So we need a higher level of abstraction. We are trying to describe the potential exchange of information by “Software Protocols and Interfaces”.
All this will become easier to understand, when we meditate a
This example is an example of a simple network service that can be executed by simple client server computing.
This simple network service (drawn in red color in Figure 1) is executed by the transport of two network messages by the transport layer.
The set of rules that have to be applied, when creating, transporting an processing the Request Message and when creating, transporting and processing the Response Message have to be specified in an interface specification *).
This interface specification specifies the red Network Interface NI (see Figure 1) in ALL layers *).
Such an interface specification is needed, if one wants to implement clients and servers completely independent of each other. It is often required by economic boundary conditions to separate the vendors of clients from the vendors of servers, hence it is always good to have such interface specification *).
Such an interface specification is sometimes called a “Protocol”.
A “protocol” more or less collects all rules that must be obeyed for the access of the specified network services. When we connect it with the example it the blog posting https://areasharpa.blog/2024/04/06/protocols-and-interfaces-wtf/ (Figure 1 there), then our “Server” here is there the “provider” of the service and our “Client” here is there the “user” of the service.
*)
The “Protocol” specification of the “Network Interface” NI is necessary, if the implementors of the Client and of the Server need to be separated (e.g. for economic reasons), but it is not necessary for every developer to know the “Protocol” specification.
The concrete implementations of the transport layer will provide APIs, here called “SAP – Service Access Point”, which serve as abstraction layers for the transport layer and for the protocol.
If a developer wants – e.g. – to implement the appication software of the Client, then he/she just needs to know, how to handle the primitives of the SAP at the Client.
I.e. this developer needs only to know, how to call the SAP with a “Request” primitive, and how to handle the “Confirmation” primitive that is returned by the SAP.
If the SAPs are well defined, then the application programmers will not have to have a look to the “Protocol” specification.
This will follow next weekend.
Have a nice week,
Yours Christoph
This little series of blog postings tries to discuss the topic of
The following blog postings are currently available within this series:
Please don’t be shocked. This posting will be about some philosophy.
This is not a blog posting about science of nature, nor about science of technology, it could even be interpreted as a religious posting.
Hence, this posting is a temporary contradiction (let’s say an exception according to Heisenberg) to my principle about keeping this blog an agnostic blog.
If you cannot accept this, then please ignore this posting 🙂 .
In my first post of this series (https://areasharpa.blog/2024/04/01/layers-planes-tiers-wtf) I thought about the layers of the universe.
With a kind of reasoning – which was more a religious reasoning than a scientific one – I came to following conclusion: […]This MUST make us think that all this LAYERING OF THE UNIVERSE is bullshit eventually.[…]
Hence I tried to become more systematic, more evidence based. So I wrote the second post of this series (PROTOCOLS AND INTERFACES), where I wrote down
That headline “protocols and interfaces” was not explained.
I presumed the idea that our invention of software interfaces and protocols in the 20th century (or was it a discovery?) has incented the idea of a layering of the universe freshly.
Hence, I want to meditate the following idea, this time:
Even, if we cannot support the idea of a rigid and static layering of the universe (i.e. the idea of a “layering of the material objects”),
How can we come to the idea of a “soft layering of the universe”, i.e. of the definition of layers that span all entities of the universe, when we try to explain the idea of software interfaces and protocols?
First, we must repeat the starting point of our considerations:
I wrote in the first post of this series: […]May I suggest to think about the “Canticle of the Sun”, by Saint Francis of Assisi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canticle_of_the_Sun)?[…]
Well, brother Saint Francis of Assisi hit some point, when he asserted, we are all brothers and sisters.
And he subsumed into this “big family” not only all humans – all peoples and all ethnia – but he meant all creature.
When we conclude the thoughts of brother Francis, we will arrive at following point, finally:
All creature can be considered as brother or sister, as part of a big family. Be it the smallest brick in any wall, be it a little rock in any river, be it the sun, be it any of our tortured brothers or sisters in any country of this beautiful world.
So far the statement, from a religious point of view.
But what, if we considered the INNER layers of each creature, when we considered
This chapter will be written next weekend.
Have a nice week
Yours Christoph
This little series of blog postings tries to discuss the topic of
The following blog postings are currently available within this series:
Please don’t be shocked. This posting will be about some philosophy.
This is not a blog posting about science of nature, nor about science of technology, it could even be interpreted as a religious posting.
Hence, this posting is a temporary contradiction (let’s say an exception according to Heisenberg) to my principle about keeping this blog an agnostic blog.
If you cannot accept this, then please ignore this posting 🙂 .
In my last post (https://areasharpa.blog/2024/04/01/layers-planes-tiers-wtf) I thought about the layers of the universe.
With a kind of reasoning – which was more a religious reasoning than a scientific one – I came to following
Conclusion:
[…]This MUST make us think that all this LAYERING OF THE UNIVERSE is bullshit eventually.[…]
ok, this time I will take my time and try to be more systematic, more evidence based.
Starting from an “Objects & Interactions” model, we have claimed that it was a general pattern that the objects (better material objects) of the universe provide and use services to each other.
Finally a material object is any subset of matter that is perceived as a single entity and a service can be broken down to the exchange of matter, energy and/or information between (or among) two (or more) material objects within a given NOW and HERE (this is a guess).
BUT:
A “service” is a human interpretation, also the “using” and “serving” that are performed by objects are such human interpretations.
But no worries, the terms “object” and “interaction” might be more general than “using” and “serving” objects, but they are human interpretation, too.
The only real things are matter/energy and space/time, according to physics (this is a rough simplification).
ANYWAY:
If we now want to identify a chronological sequence and generally assert:
FIRST the service exists BEFORE it can be used,
and if we want to assume a direction in evolution according to which there is a DEVELOPMENT from the lower creature to the higher creature, then we come to the FOLLOWING GUESS:
Apparently there is an order of creation according to which the lower creature has to exist before the service can start. It (the lower creature) is subordinate to the higher creature, so one could divide the entities into different layers according to their order.
This idea of an order of creation is supported by our own way of working and thinking.
If man creates something, then he does this according to a plan, usually.
In his fantasy, the human creator will have an idea of the result and he will break down the creation into single steps, so he can start with the first, most simple, most basic steps and improve from step to step, until the final result is visible to everybody.
So we come to an idea of an order of creation. An example of such an order – I’m fantasizing now – could look something like the next picture.
Looking at this layered picture, one could create the idea, the lower layer can exist without the upper layer, but the upper layer cannot exist without the lower layer.
This can create ideas like the idea of a creation in steps – let’s say 7 days – or an evolution of the universe.
Well. It fits well to our perception of reality, when we assume an order of creation, but do we have arguments, some CONs, that would oppose this opinion?
Well, my own “layering mania” may derive from the fact that I was a simple electrical engineer, when I started to work as a programmer, and all this layering was new for me.
First time I heard of the term of an “INTERFACE”, it was with plugs for wiring information exchange. RS-232 interface, audio connector, and so on.
Hence, let’s try to understand cautiously where this “layer mania” comes from.
This will lead us to the actual topic of “Protocols & Interfaces”, eventually.
I will continue with this topic, next weekend.
Have a nice week,
Yours Christoph
This little series of blog postings tries to discuss the topic of
The following blog postings are currently available within this series:
Please don’t be shocked. This posting will be about some philosophy.
This is not a blog posting about science of nature, nor about science of technology, it could even be interpreted as a religious posting.
Hence, this posting is a temporary contradiction (let’s say an exception according to Heisenberg) to my principle about keeping this blog an agnostic blog.
If you cannot accept this, then please ignore this posting 🙂 .
Perhaps this blog is not the right place for a discussion about the layers of the Universe, but I think, it is never too early and never too late, in order to stand still a little bit and think about WHAT we are doing here, on this planet, in this Universe, NOW AND HERE, and WHY we do it.
You might remember, we had such discussion already, almost two years ago, on this blog:
Now, a few days ago, I had a discussion with John C., maybe it was more a kind of “twofold brainstorming”, as it is always with John 🙂
We chatted about interfaces, protocols, data formats, behavior, declarative and imperative programming and all those clumsy terms that are used by nerds and other programmers all the day.
So I decided, to start from scratch and try to understand all this. Probably I am not yet mature enough to actually understand all this – to be enlightened – so there we go.
Please understand this blog post as an attempt to understand a part of the Universe, done by a kind of “weekend philosopher” (as I would describe myself).
Well, those days I stated:
I have to say that I’m a programmer and therefore I am keen to layer any system – from top to bottom – it’s an occupational disease of us programmers.
Nowadays, I would be more cautious.
Isn’t it a general pattern, which we find in the Universe, when we study it?
We can state:
So, in a nutshell, we may say:
However, one major drawback comes with all this LAYERING OF THE UNIVERSE.
When we always draw the user above the provider, or left of the provider, then we are seduced to do a judgement about the VALUE of the layers.
We presume the upper layers, the users/consumers, being “the first”, having higher VALUE than the providers/offerers.
So we come to the conclusion the user/consumer must PAY a compensation to the provider/offerer.
All this leads to the bad story of money and wealth that we elaborated at mankind.
Here – and I have to say that as a Christian – we must stumble upon the book of revelation, chapter 22, were we can read about Christ:
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
In other words: Christ is the lowest layer of the Universe and at the same time he is the highest.
This MUST make us think that all this LAYERING OF THE UNIVERSE is bullshit eventually.
It depends on the use case – on the actually provided service – if an entity is a provider or a user. The roles of provider and user may change with time.
While man is a user of the Earth’s services most time, the roles will flip after death, when the body provides services to the worms and bacteria that will eat him.
So, the layering is something dynamically, up and down, left and right may change with time, all life is a chaotic back and forth and cannot be classified by something stupid like fixed layers of the Universe or a “food chain” or some similar scalar ordering.
May I suggest to think about the “Canticle of the Sun”, by Saint Francis of Assisi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canticle_of_the_Sun)?
Saint Francis dared to call all creature as sisters and brothers. This should make us thinking a little bit.
Have a nice week
Yours Christoph
Dear Friends of Realtime 3D Graphics
Not necessary to say, I like the approach of the FreeWRL developers that was introduced last summer on the x3d-public mailing list.
That proposal can be looked after at the archives of x3d-public: http://web3d.org/pipermail/x3d-public_web3d.org/2023-June/018878.html (and then follow the thread up to my latest e-mail from Sat Mar 16 07:43:28 PDT 2024).
I.e.: the multiuser capabilities of any sensor (touch sensor, time sensor, plane sensor, ……) are realized by Comment PDUs via the DIS protocol.
This approach has the advantage the author of the scene does not need to care about multiuser (almost).
See the demo video for our (we = the “Society for Lifelong Collaborating“) “teapot review”scene:
https://lc-soc-lc.at/owncloud/index.php/s/BMQeF9fSgir4TaR
Cloud Password: HalloWelt
We want, I want, invest some of my spare time, in order to analyse the pros and cons against the Network Sensor (e.g. BS Contact) or other technologies. This is our goal for 2024.
The whole story will be available on my private blackboard pages, after today in the evening. (u: doug, p: freewrl).
https://lc-soc-lc.at/blackboard/member-space/yeti/private/otwttrs.htm
Have a nice week
Yours CP/V
Dear Friends of Realtime 3D,
Well, I told you about the association “Society for Computer Aided Collaboration” that we founded last July, and I told you about the “great vision” of “Simple Multiuser over SIP (SMUoS)”, which we cannot care for before next year.
But did I tell you about the “little everyday things”, that we can do for the community?
Well, over Christmas we tested a few details of the DIS implementation of FreeWRL, we actually found a few little bugs and the bugs were actually corrected in version 6.6 of FreeWrl.
See the report at https://lc-soc-lc.at/blackboard/member-space/yeti/private/freewrl-initialtests.htm (you have to use credentials doug/freewrl to open the page).
This is it,
Have a nice week,
Yours Christoph
Dear Friends of Realtime 3D,
Well, in the latest posting, I told you about that idea about Multicast SIP.
Then I described the idea a little bit more detailed on the web site of The Society:
https://lc-soc-lc.or.at/sub-topic-001-smuos/vision.htm
Now, we have discussed about the future handling of this idea, and it is clear that we cannot handle this idea at the time being, due to the resources of The Society are very very scarce.
Probably, we will start with this analysis, earliest by the end of 2024.
Have a nice week,
Yours CP/V