Recursion Book Quotes

This low point isn't the book of your life. It's just a chapter.

You really believe time is an illusion?” “More like our perception of it is so flawed that it may as well be an illusion. Every moment is equally real and happening now, but the nature of our consciousness only gives us access to one slice at a time. Think of our life like a book. Each page a distinct moment. But in the same way we read a book, we can only perceive one moment, one page, at a time. Our flawed perception shuts off access to all the others. Until now.

Science is not and cannot be a quest for a complete knowledge of the universe. Rather, it is a process whereby certain information is selected as being more relevant to human aims and understanding.

The pieces in this book, then, are quite literally “speculative writing,” neither stories nor essays but something more like fables: compressed narratives, grounded in real experience and as true as they need to be, with little “morals” at the end. They move directly from what I have seen and experienced to what I think about it, from the particular to the general, with none of the recursiveness of ordinary essays and short stories.

There is better reason than ever for believing that the structure and complexity of our world is inherent in our physical laws and not in some special, unknowable microstate. The universe is a recursively defined geometric object.

Recursion is the movement that tirelessly integrates contingency into its own functioning to realize its telos. In so doing it generates an impenetrable complexity in the course of time. Organisms exhibit a complexity of relations between parts and whole inside the body and with its environment (e.g. structural coupling) in its functioning. Life also exhibits such complexity, since it expects the unexpected, and in every encounter it attempts to turn the unexpected into an event that can contribute to its singularity.

Why does it disturb us that the map be included in the map and the thousand and one nights in the book of the Thousand and One Nights? Why does it disturb us that Don Quixote be a reader of the Quixote and Hamlet a spectator of Hamlet? I believe I have found the reason: these inversions suggest that if the characters of a fictional work can be readers or spectators, we, its readers or spectators, can be fictitious. In 1833, Carlyle observed that the history of the universe is an infinite sacred book that all men write and read and try to understand, and in which they are also written.

Looking on the bright side, let us remind ourselves of what has happened in the wake of earlier demystifications. We find no diminution of wonder; on the contrary, we find deeper beauties and more dazzling visions of the complexity of the universe than the protectors of mystery ever conceived. The 'magic' of earlier visions was, for the most part, a cover-up for frank failures of imagination, a boring dodge enshrined in the concept of a deus ex machina. Fiery gods driving golden chariots across the skies are simpleminded comic-book fare compared to the ravishing strangeness of contemporary cosmology, and the recursive intricacies of the reproductive machinery of DNA make élan vital about as interesting as Superman's dread Kryptonite. When we understand consciousness - when there is no more mystery - consciousness will be different, but there will still be beauty, and more room than ever for awe.

six books that mean the world to her: On the Fabric of the Human Body by Andreas Vesalius, Physica by Aristotle, The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy by Isaac Newton, Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, and two novels—Camus’s The Stranger, and Gabriel García Márquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude.

In view of this, it may seem remarkable that anything as complex as a text of Hamlet exists. The observation that Hamlet was written by Shakespeare and not some random agency only transfers the problem. Shakespeare, like everything else in the world, must have arisen (ultimately) from a homogeneous early universe. Any way you look at it, Hamlet is a product of that primeval chaos.

Life is a sort of spreadsheet program in which each cell’s action is dictated by its neighbors.

Diaz moved as though to get out. “No, ma’am,” Dox said, scoping the area. “Tell me where the phone is and you stay put. Just in case there are any unfriendlies in the area.” “Behind a book called Recursion, by Blake Crouch. Level three. Fiction.

The Pseudocode Programming Process Have you checked that the prerequisites have been satisfied? Have you defined the problem that the class will solve? Is the high-level design clear enough to give the class and each of its routines a good name? Have you thought about how to test the class and each of its routines? Have you thought about efficiency mainly in terms of stable interfaces and readable implementations or mainly in terms of meeting resource and speed budgets? Have you checked the standard libraries and other code libraries for applicable routines or components? Have you checked reference books for helpful algorithms? Have you designed each routine by using detailed pseudocode? Have you mentally checked the pseudocode? Is it easy to understand? Have you paid attention to warnings that would send you back to design (use of global data, operations that seem better suited to another class or another routine, and so on)? Did you translate the pseudocode to code accurately? Did you apply the PPP recursively, breaking routines into smaller routines when needed? Did you document assumptions as you made them? Did you remove comments that turned out to be redundant? Have you chosen the best of several iterations, rather than merely stopping after your first iteration? Do you thoroughly understand your code? Is it easy to understand?

Complexity is self-generating. The diversity of our world is understandable because it is possible to design imaginary self-consistent worlds potentially as complex as our own.     This is no mere restatement of common sense. Everyone daydreams alternate worlds, but the imagination soon tires of filling in details. Ulam, Von Neumann, and Conway showed that a few recursive rules can paint in all the details. Creation can be simple.

Past generations were most concerned with the material side of creation: How could something come from nothing? Cosmologists now recognize another, informational side of creation. Creation of a world entails above all information. The state of everything—everywhere—at every time—must be defined. The most economical way to specify such information is through a complexity-generating recursion of physical law.

The whole premise of this book has been that the default system of human nature, and hence of human society, is the tribal system; unquestionably Closed. However we change and develop-however Open we become, it is always with us in one form or another. I am therefore, in this scheme, less interested in any kind of choice to be made between forms of society or mentality than in trying to understand the interaction between the tribal default system and the civilized structures we have erected on it or over it. This does not mean that we cannot prefer the Open to the Closed form of society and defend the former against a recursion to the latter. We shall certainly do so. But it does mean that this cannot be done without understanding the nature of the interaction between them and, what is equally important, how we should go about studying this interaction. With this in mind, let us reflect on Popper, tribalism, and the idea of culture, and so come full circle back to the issues that launched this enterprise.

is a result of environment. Our cognitions—our idea of reality—are shaped by what we can perceive, by the limitations of our senses. We think we’re seeing the world as it really is, but you of all people know…it’s all just shadows on the cave’s wall. We’re just as blinkered as our water-dwelling ancestors, the boundaries of our brains just as much an accident of evolution. And like them, by definition, we can’t see what we’re missing. Or…we couldn’t, until now.” Helena remembers Slade’s mysterious smile that night at dinner, so many months ago. “Piercing the veil of perception,” she says. “Exactly. To a two-dimensional being, traveling along a third dimension wouldn’t just be impossible, it’d be something they couldn’t conceive of. Just as our brains fail us here. Imagine if you could see the world through the eyes of more advanced beings—in four dimensions. You could experience events in your life in any order. Relive any memory you want.” “But that’s…it’s…ridiculous. And it breaks cause and effect.” Slade smiles that superior smile again. Still one step ahead. “Quantum physics is on my side here, I’m afraid. We already know that on the particle level, the arrow of time isn’t as simple as humans think it is.” “You really believe time is an illusion?” “More like our perception of it is so flawed that it may as well be an illusion. Every moment is equally real and happening now, but the nature of our consciousness only gives us access to one slice at a time. Think of our life like a book. Each page a distinct moment. But in the same way we read a book, we can only perceive one moment, one page, at a time. Our flawed perception shuts off access to all the others. Until now.” “But how?” “You once told me that memory is our only true access to reality. I think you were right. Some other moment, an old memory, is just as much now as this sentence I’m speaking, just as accessible as walking into the room next door. We just needed a way to convince our brains of that. To short-circuit our evolutionary limitations and expand our consciousness beyond our sensory volume.” Her head is spinning.

What's uncanny about censorship in a liberal society is that sooner or later the government's goal is not just to ban objectionable books. It is to act as if they don't exist. The bans themselves should, whenever possible, remain secret, which is to say that the ideal censorship is a recursion of silence.

According to my analysis of the tōlĕdōt (account), I would suggest that Genesis 2 is not recursively recounting what happened on day six but is talking about what happened in the aftermath of day six.

Is intelligence a formal (or mathematically definable) system? Is life a recursive (or mechanically calculable) function? What happens when you replicate discrete-state microprocessors by the billions and run these questions the other way? (Are formal systems intelligent? Are recursive functions alive?) Life and intelligence have learned to operate on any number of different scales: larger, smaller, slower, and faster than our own. Biology and technology evidence parallel tendencies toward collective, hierarchical processes based on information exchange. As information is distributed, it tends to be represented (encoded) by increasingly economical (meaningful) forms. This evolutionary process, whereby the most economical or meaningful representation wins, leads to a hierarchy of languages, encoding meaning on levels that transcend comprehension by the system’s individual components—whether genes, insects, microprocessors, or human minds.

In arguing for a recursive history and the uneven sedimentation of colonial practices in the present, I intend to retain the “post” as a mark of skepticism rather than assume its clarity. I choose to avoid the artifice that makes the “cut” between the colonial and postcolonial before asking how those temporalities are lived. I prefer “(post)colonial” studies to emphasize a colonial “presence” in its tangible and intangible forms and to acknowledge that there are colonial “presents

Amor Towles = Amor Towles, genius writer of A Gentleman in Moscow, my favorite book of the last five years.