Personal reasons for all these threads

 As you see, I’ve updated the post on the no semantics stance with the content from various g+ posts. So now there is a all-in-one post which I shall keep updated if necessary. A better idea would be to use the chorasimilarity big post as main source from now on.
Mind that in the g+ stream I have several posts which are related, although they are technically about various details of chemlambda.
Coming to that, perhaps it has been a psychological error to show you first very complex cascades of hundreds or thousands of rewrites, hoping you will be amazed that they eventually work to give a meaningful result even if the intermediary steps have no (global) meaning.
That is why I changed the strategy and now I make clear some very simple mechanisms which emerge, all from the unique random stupid algorithm consisting in the random application of rewrites.
All this is part of the ideas which I hope some will appreciate, that’s why maybe you throw a second longer look of some of the demos
and why not hoping that among those who start making sense of it are also some chemists who might start to believe that is actually possible to build real molecules which compute autonomously exactly like in chemlambda, or even better that at the molecular level life functions verbatim by a version of chemlambda, which is perhaps a proof of principle for that.
So chemists may take a longer look at the article Molecular computers
Ending with that, I just want to show that all the apparently disparate threads (chemlambda, no semantics, open access) from chorasimilarity meet: this article is perhaps the first one from a series of future versions of a research article. What is written there can be validated not socially, as in the actual peer review system, but much more rigorously by using the github repository which contains the scripts (which work thus they prove that the algorithm behind them is sound) which were used for the said work.
That is why I try my best not to go on beaten paths of publication, even if it’s hard, with the hope that using some good science as argument, having an achievable project, which can only work collaboratively, and insisting that the future is validation of the kind attached to this article, all this will make a strong enough impression on you, with benefits for all parts involved.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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