2022-10-31 03:12:02 <boru        > Sounds like it'd be a fun project, actually.
2022-10-31 03:12:30 <boru        > Can you also work on a replacement for simulink?
2022-10-31 08:13:08 <KipIngram   > With a whole graphical interface?  I suppose anything is possible.  Graphical stuff isn't my forte, but I've done a good bit of that sort of numerical simulation; that side of it is fairly close to the sort of stuff I get interested in.
2022-10-31 08:13:46 <boru        > I'd settle for a TUI like bc(1).
2022-10-31 08:14:18 <boru        > Or provide an IPC mechanism, so people can do whatever they want with the I/O.
2022-10-31 08:21:08 <KipIngram   > Just out of curiosity, what sort of things would you be looking to model?
2022-10-31 08:21:32 <KipIngram   > I'm kind of perpetually interested in physics - I'd be wanting to model various bits of that stuff that was of interest to me at any particular time.
2022-10-31 08:22:22 <boru        > Recreational integer series, but for work, sometimes hunting for harmonics in electronics design.
2022-10-31 09:14:22 <KipIngram   > Cool.  Electronics is a likely interest I'd have.
2022-10-31 09:15:24 <KipIngram   > Ugh.  Watched some of a video just now; guy's talking about the  so called "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum theory.  I honestly cannot for the life of me see how anything things that is a sound idea.
2022-10-31 09:15:36 <KipIngram   > It strikes me as thoroughly insane.
2022-10-31 09:17:17 <boru        > All of the N-dimensional GUT stuff is way over my head. I don't even try to understand it.
2022-10-31 09:19:21 <KipIngram   > Not quite the same thing - I'm willing to at least feel like one of the "cosmological" multiverse ideas MIGHT be right.  Problem is no way is proposed to prove or disprove it, so it's hardly "science" anymore.  Many Worlds is a quantum thing - they want to say that the wave function never collapses from a superposition down to a single outcome - that you get a spanky new universe for each option.
2022-10-31 09:20:52 <KipIngram   > They wind up not really PREDICTING anything - IT ALL HAPPENS in that model.
2022-10-31 09:21:09 <KipIngram   > What good does that do me trying to make predictions?
2022-10-31 09:21:39 <boru        > You've got to start somewhere, I guess.
2022-10-31 09:21:59 <boru        > Have you ever read The Trouble With Physics by Lee Smolin?
2022-10-31 09:22:37 <boru        > We're in an age where we don't yet have the computational power or technology to really perform the experiments we need to. It'll come at some point, presumably.
2022-10-31 09:22:40 <KipIngram   > I suppose.  Then you get guys like Sean Carroll who want to say that the "math of Many Worlds" is so lovely that we should accept it as sound science in spite of it not being falsifiable.
2022-10-31 09:22:52 <boru        > Yeah, that's nonsense.
2022-10-31 09:23:13 <boru        > "Sound science" which hasn't been subject to the scientific method...
2022-10-31 09:23:32 <KipIngram   > Exactly.
2022-10-31 09:24:16 <eris[m]     > honestly im inclined to avoid persuing this type of science
2022-10-31 09:24:25 <thrig       > but, research grants
2022-10-31 09:24:33 <boru        > Precisely that.
2022-10-31 09:38:09 <KipIngram   > Oh, I quite enjoy physics, and quantum theory is part of that.  I just consider this particular spin on quantum theory to be... crackers.
2022-10-31 09:39:09 <KipIngram   > When I was younger that seemed to be a fairly general feeling - it was thought of as a bit of a "fringe" idea.  But these days it seems to have gotten some kind of bandwagon going, which I really don't get.
2022-10-31 09:40:10 <KipIngram   > It's not a pretty situation, though - we know how to run the math to get predictions of quantum processes that are like the best predictions we've ever made, in human history.  Just astoundngly accurate.
2022-10-31 09:40:30 <KipIngram   > But... there's huge controversy over what it all actually MEANS.  Over what's actually *happening*.
2022-10-31 09:49:02 <KipIngram   > The other multiverse idea (that I called "cosmological" above) is just the notion that our "universe" might be one of many "bubbles" in some larger background strata.  I see no particular reason to deny that as a *possibility*.  But I don't see any evidence supporting the idea either.
2022-10-31 09:49:28 <KipIngram   > It's sort of a "sure, could be" sort of thing for me.
2022-10-31 09:49:42 <thrig       > sure, could be a flying bread monster
2022-10-31 09:49:48 <KipIngram   > Right.  :-)
2022-10-31 09:50:15 <thrig       > not even going to try to spell italian this early in the morning
2022-10-31 09:50:24 <KipIngram   > But the quantum Many Worlds thing just has implications that I find entirely unacceptable.  In ADDITION to being unprovable because it doesn't make any predicitions that are different from those of other interpretations.
2022-10-31 09:50:53 <KipIngram   > None of these guys argue about what the answers are going to be - they all run the same calculations.
2022-10-31 09:51:10 <KipIngram   > They just muck about arguing over how to "think about it all."
2022-10-31 09:51:49 <KipIngram   > And eris, choosing to not even think about such things is a completely valid approach.
2022-10-31 09:52:00 <KipIngram   > If it doesn't make any difference, why worry?
2022-10-31 13:25:04 <neuro_sys_  > Any thoughts on <BUILDS? It seems like it was removed from the ANS standard, but was there until 83.
2022-10-31 13:26:18 <neuro_sys_  > > "Unlike CREATE it does not add an execution token"
2022-10-31 13:26:22 <neuro_sys_  > Ah the difference is now clear
2022-10-31 16:20:53 <KipIngram   > So how does one get at the address of the built data, then?
2022-10-31 16:21:13 <KipIngram   > When one runs a word built around such a thing?
2022-10-31 16:21:51 <KipIngram   > Is the idea you'd use CREATE once at the beginning, and then be able to use <BUILDS possibly repettively in the building up of a structure?
2022-10-31 16:22:35 <KipIngram   > Maybe that supports a more "modular" structure building approach?
2022-10-31 16:22:58 <KipIngram   > But we already have ALLOT for just allocating some bytes.
2022-10-31 16:23:26 <KipIngram   > Well, I couldn't tell you for sure that ALLOT is or isn't standard.
2022-10-31 16:24:06 <thrig       > ALLOT was in Starting Forth so pretty old
2022-10-31 16:24:20 <KipIngram   > Yes, it was around when I first learned.
2022-10-31 16:24:32 <thrig       > 6.1.0710 ALLOT CORE
2022-10-31 16:24:35 <KipIngram   > Which was early 1980's.
2022-10-31 16:24:52 <thrig       > I don't have ALLOT more to say about it, though
2022-10-31 16:25:09 <KipIngram   > lmao...
2022-10-31 17:25:04 <neuro_sys_  > I guess <BUILDS creates the dictionary entry, but leaves CFA empty, whereas CREATE puts doVAR in there.
2022-10-31 17:25:55 <neuro_sys_  > A word created with <BUILDS not followed by DOES> would crash or be undefined.
2022-10-31 17:28:15 <neuro_sys_  > On another note, I tried to rewrite PARSE in high level forth instead of assembly using the primitives I have, but not did a great job I feel.
2022-10-31 17:30:51 <neuro_sys_  > I'm back to
2022-10-31 17:31:44 <neuro_sys_  > Forth again after realizing Forth is the best macro assembler that can be. I just want to write some Z80 assembly but also do lots of macro expansions.