## [REBOL] Re: On mutability and sameness

### From: joel:neely:fedex at: 20-Jun-2001 15:12

Hi, Mark,
**[Robbo1Mark--aol--com]** wrote:

> which is based on quantum electronics / physics, which is
> written in mathematics...
>

NO! Our mathematical models are only human attempts to model
what happens at the QM level, they are *not* the foundation of
what happens at that level. QM did whatever it did before there
were humans *or* mathematics.

> which is written in mathematics, which is written in symbols
> on ink on paper.
>

Mathematics isn't about a particular set of symbols nor
dependent a particular publication medium.
The history of modern mathematics is about the process of weaning
mathematics from dependence on any application and on a priori
assumptions, and placing it on a formal axiomatic basis.
The whole point of a formal scheme is that one can "bootstrap"
a self-consistent system out of a set of axioms with no
dependence on anything but itself. Full stop.

> But in computing terms you CAN start somewhere and that is at
> the MACHINE level and build up from there.
>

Mathematics *is* the "science" in "computing science". Not c.
If you want to do something constructive, how about trying your
hand at describing some part of REBOL behavior in clear enough
terms that:
1) it provides testable predictions,
2) it can be used to explain (part of) REBOL to a newcomer,
3) it doesn't require use of anything but REBOL, logic,
and mathematics.
I will be perfectly happy to lend a hand in debugging any such
models (as I hope I have been happy to have debugging and advice
regarding the ones I've proposed).
OTOH, I have nothing further to add to any discussions of whether
REBOL should be open source. It isn't. I got over it. Long ago.
I look forward to seeing some usable models!
--
It's turtles all the way down!
joel'dot'neely'at'fedex'dot'com