CODE


Codosophy:
Ontology
Deconstruction
Epistemology

Codosophy — As a word, it is the merging of coding and philosophy. As a subject, it is the interplaying of the programmatical and the physical. (It can also be defined as either the coding of knowledge or the code of knowledge.)

The ‘-ism’ – – of codosophy is codicalism (from codical: relating to a codex, or a code).

 
languages ↔ substrate
syntax ↔ semantics
information ↔ matter & energy
epistemology ↔ ontology
source code ↔ object code
code is data ↔ code is material*
PLUM↔CHUM


PLUM (Programming Languages Universe Model)
CHUM (Computing Hardware Universe Model)
* see Code is Material

The role of science is to reverse code engineer (RCE) some aspect of reality (AOR) into some domain-specific [programming] language (DSL).

Codicalism is pragmatism in that it chooses
• programming over theory
• substrate over meaning
• pragmas over truths

By not confusing (modeling) languages and (computing) substrate, codicalism avoids platonism:

Many physicists have uncritically adopted platonic realism (the belief that the objects within the models of theoretical physics constitute elements of reality) as their personal interpretation of the meaning of physics.
Physicists are philosophers, too

Given:
• physical space = natural space + artificial space
• artificial space includes infinitary-domain languages (IDLs)
Question: Does a platform (computing substrate) exist in natural space for running IDLs?

(I have left aside for now the possibility of nonphysical substrates: minds, platonic structures, gods and demons, … . See also The Dualism of Physicalism.)

The “It’s models almost all the way up and almost all the way down” comes originally from Ronald Giere.

The underlying substrate of nature is 100% physical/material/whatever, but our models of it are made from languages of our own construction.

One should not confuse the models (or components of the models) with the substrate (or components of the substrate). That is platonism.

An earlier version of codicalism is what I called codifism (from “codify”). Codifism could be seen though as the active aspect of codicalism (i.e., creating new languages, codifying). So one can be a codosopher, codicalist, codifist, or coder.


Philip Thrift

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s