Which of the four sides is longer?

The ancient Greek word "ὕλη" ≈ "wood, brush, subject, matter". Thus, it has a physical and figurative meaning depending on context. In terms of Aristotle's four causes, "matter" is the "material" that is transformed into something else. The "matter" is similar to the idea of "data" in computer science.

The Latin word "quatntus" ≈ "how much, how many, how big, as much as" and is the source of the English word "quantum".

James 3:5
Strong	Used	Unique	Word	Part of speech
G3779	208	205	ουτως	adverb
G2532	8954	8954	και	conjunction
G3588	19706	981	η	article nominative singular feminine
G1100	50	7	γλωσσα	noun nominative singular feminine
G3398	30	6	μικρον	adjective nominative singular neuter
G3196	34	5	μελος	noun nominative singular neuter
G1510	2435	888	εστιν	verb present active indicative 3rd person singular
G2532	8954	8954	και	conjunction
G3173	242	8	μεγαλα	adjective accusative plural neuter
G3166	1	1	αυχει	verb present active indicative 3rd person singular
G3708	682	199	ιδου	verb 2nd person aorist middle imperative 2nd person singular
G2245	3	2	ηλικον	adjective nominative singular neuter
G4442	71	26	πυρ	noun nominative singular neuter
G2245	3	1	ηλικην	adjective accusative singular feminine
G5208	1	1	υλην	noun accusative singular feminine
G381	2	1	αναπτει	verb present active indicative 3rd person singular

The KJV (King James Version) translates as "great" and "little" the same Greek word "ἡλίκος" ≈ "as big as, as great as, as old as" and is related to "ἡλικία" ≈ "age, maturity" as used in the story of Zacchaeus where it is mistranslated as "short".

More: Luke 19: A short discussion on stature

Greek has (at least) two words for "form", both of which are used at times by Aristotle, Plato, etc. The English word "form" is, through French, from the Latin word "forme" ≈ "form, shape, appearance" which appears to be from the ancient Greek word "μορφή" ≈ "shape, fashion, appearance". The ancient Greek word "εἶδος" ≈ "form, shape" from the PIE (Proto Indo-European) root "*WEYD" ≈ "see"and is related to words such as "video".

The "form" is similar to the idea of "code" in computer science where "code" and "data" are interchangeable depending on point of view.

In design and implementation terms of OOP (Object Oriented Programming) the following loosely correspond in terms of the four causes.

• Design: "classes" and "code" as "algorithms"
• Implementation: "objects" and "data" as "data structures"

The English word "information" has the word "form" in it as when someone is "informed" about something.

More: Classes and objects

More: The full assurance of information

The ancient Greek word "κίνησις" ≈ "motion, dance" and is the source of the English word "kinetic". In context, the word can mean "revolt", "inflection" or other "action". The word comes from the ancient Greek word "κινέω" ≈ "move" and is related to the Latin word "cieo" ≈ "move".

The "movement" is similar to the idea of "execution" or "running" the "code" with "data" in computer science.

Philosophers call this the "efficient" cause which comes, through French, from the Latin word "efficere" ≈ "work out, accomplish" and is the source of the English word "effect".

The Latin word "efficere" ≈ "work out, accomplish" and is the source of the English word "effect".

The Greek for "made" is that of "coming into being". In John 3, the same word is translated as the "born" in "born again" or "born from above".

More: John 3 Born from the beginnings

The ancient Greek word "τέλος" ≈ "end, purpose, complete". The ancient Greek word "εις" ≈ "into".


That is, one does not need to endure to the "end" of time or "end" of the age or "end" of life. One needs to endure "into" the "purpose". To do that, one needs to insure that one knows the correct "goal" or "purpose" "into" which to "endure".

The "purpose" is similar to the idea of a "goal" or "postcondition" or "result" of "running" the "code" with "data" in computer science.

The Greek word for "endure" is sometimes translated as "patient" and is related to the word for "abide" or "remain".

Here is a computer science model in terms of Aristotle's four causes.

This model fits into a top-down backward-chaining design and a bottom-up forward-chaining implementation.

Let us express Aristotle's four causes using the computer science interpretation in a top-down backward-chaining way.
Top-down backward-chaining design:

• result/goal if run if code if data
• result/goal from run from code from data

Bottom-up forward-chaining implementation:

• data then code then run then result/goal
• data to code to run to result/goal

• Text formatter system. About 2,000 pages of Python (and growing)
• Editor macro system. About 1,000 pages of Lua.
• Web infrastructure: About 500 pages of PHP and JavaScript
• Graphics infrastructure: About 500 pages of PostScript
• Management of images, students, etc. About 5,000 pages of Delphi (being phased out)

The core text formatting part of the general text formatting system is a functional string-rewriting system with abstraction mechanisms to manage redundancy.

The text formatting system gives "life" to many different programming languages, web pages, documents, etc., by allowing the abstraction and sharing of high-level code and facilitating the management of redundancy at all levels of development.

Chapter model	Embedded code model	Separate code

[slide user interface demo, UI state, content changes]

Lua, PHP, Python
JavaScript, Java, Kotlin
Bash, Batch, PowerShell
PostScript, Forth, Perl
R, SQL, XUL, AHK
ASP, ASPX, VBA, VBS
C, D, C++, C#, Rust
Go, Julia, Pascal, Ruby
Clojure, Haskell, F#, Racket, Scala, XSLT
Erlang, Prolog
Base languages:

• Python: text formatter
• Lua: editor macros
• PHP: server-side processing
• JavaScript: client-side processing

The text formatter system can format itself.

• 1. Base: smaller bootstrap formatter just for Python
• 2, Step 1: formatting system (to get started)
• 3. Step 2: formatted-formatting system (different than step 1)
• 4. Step 3: formatted-formatted-formatting system (same as step 2, fixed point)

---

Keep in mind the "Back to the future" movie series and what Doc. Brown tells Marty.

There are now two of me here, and there are two of you here.

• Decide what the formatter should do. This is the goal which is expressed as a text specification.
• Create the base bootstrap formatter.

• Create the step 1 formatter using the base bootstrap formatter. This is the first reflexive application, but not necessarily a fixed point.
• Create the step 2 formatter using the step 1 formatter. This is the second reflexive application which should be a fixed point.

Note that two reflexive applications are needed, not just one, to insure a fixed-point has been reached.

Note that in physical processes there may be somewhat random variations such that the formatter progression changes during each step.

The goal of the formatter is not to propagate itself, but to allow other programs to be created and maintained in order to do useful work.

Can we actually work backwards from "goal" to "run" to "code" to "data" as "start"?

This was a primary focus of the career of famous and influential Dutch computer scientist Edsger Dijkstra (1930-2002). That is, from a specification, develop a correct program.

When applying for a marriage license the Netherlands refused to accept his occupation as "programmer" since they said there was no such profession. They accepted his alternative as "theoretical physicist" from his graduate academic work.

More: Edsger Dijkstra

Having used many of Dijkstra's ideas for developing correct programs for some 40 years, here are some observations.

• A denotational semantics can be used to develop axiomatic semantics rules.
• Partial correctness (whet it stops it is correct) is easier than total correctness (partially correct and it does stop).
• Functional programming techniques (based on Church's lambda calculus), whenever possible, make correctness easier than using imperative programming (based on the Turing's machine).
• In parallel or concurrent programming, the idea is to first make sure all of the independent parts work correctly.
• Correctness of parallel or concurrent programming is much more difficult and, in even practical and small cases, intractable to check and/or verify.
• Students who have learned operational semantics (thinking like a machine) do not want to learn how to do axiomatic semantics and program proofs (thinking logically and functionally).

Sequential programming correctness is, in principle, doable and not difficult. It can be compared to the first law of "Loving God". It can be done separately of anyone else in the sense of a single processor system with limited interactions with other systems or processes.

Parallel or concurrent programming correctness is, in principle, not easily doable and intractable in practice. It can be compared to the second law of "Loving neighbor as oneself". It needs to be done in a distributed computing system of many processes.

Here is a creation model in terms of Aristotle's four causes.


Top-down backward-chaining design: John 1:1-5

• result/goal if run if code if data

Bottom-up forward-chaining implementation: Genesis 1:1+

• data then code then run then result/goal

One way to design top-down backward-chaining:

• John 1:1. In the beginning was the goal or rational explanation.
• The data-code-run design is that rational explanation and must satisfy a reflexive fixed point model as in a text formatter system. This needs to be done twice to achieve the fixed point.

One way to implement bottom-up forward-chaining:

• Genesis 1:1. In the beginning, make all the data that is needed. Create the heaven and the earth and everything in it.
• Made all the code that is needed to operate on the data - providing life via DNA and associated parts of the data. Make plants and life.
• Let the data and code run in a consistent fixed point manner towards the goal. There will be good (desired) parts and bad (not desired) parts.

What is the "beginning"?

What does the "with" mean?

• ... and the word was with God, ...
• ... was in the beginning with God.

What is "darkness"?

What is the "beginning"? Which "beginning"?

☐ The "beginning" of the "data" as in time and space as we know it as described in Genesis 1:1. This is the "box" in which we find ourselves.
☐ The "beginning" of the designed "goal" that, when worked backwards, is then implemented using the "data" that is described in Genesis 1:1. This design approach appears to fit John 1:1.

Comparison:

• John 1: (beginning of design) result/goal if run if code if data
• Genesis 1: (beginning of implementation) data then code then run then result/goal

The ancient Greek word "λόγος" ≈ "rational explanation, word".

• The "logical reasoning" (masculine) is equated with "God" (masculine).

There is another Greek word to refer to a word or words as "spoken words".

Discuss: Could the "logical reasoning" have to do with "reality" as we perceive it or as "truth" as Jesus uses the word (referring to "reality")?

What does it mean to be "with" God? The Greek word means "to" or "towards",

In what was put as Aristotle's opening statement of some 2600 English pages of small text print, Aristotle defines an equivocation as a source of deception. In that statement, Aristotle uses the phrase "statement" of "essence" or "logos" of "ousia". The "essence" is the reality of the physical "substance" or "idea" and the "logos" is the abstract "description" or "logical reasoning" of that "essence". Aristotle will use this a number of times in Categorizes, Metaphysics, etc.


The Greek word for "common" is the same word used for "Koine" Greek. The Latin equivalent is "Vulgar" Latin. The English equivalent is "Street" English.

The word "ousia" as "substance" will acquire a more technical theological meaning later in church history.

More: Aristotle

What does it mean to be "with" God? This idea is both verses. The ancient Greek word "πρός" ≈ "to, towards".

• The word was to/towards God.
• ... in the beginning to/towards God.

In order to explain the "to" or "towards" someone decided to change the meaning to "with" and then come up with rationalizations to justify changing the meaning.

The KJV translates as "same" the Greek that is a pronoun that refers to something masculine. Both candidates were equated by John as equal in the previous verse.

☐ "logical reasoning"
☐ "God"

Some choices for "same".

☐ The logical reasoning was in the beginning to/towards God.
☐ God was in the beginning to/towards God.

The "to" or "towards" is a reflexive application of the "logical reasoning" to itself. Note that two reflexive applications are needed to achieve a fixed-point in the logical reasoning of reality. There is no need to translate "to" or "towards" as "with" with the associated ambiguity of meaning.

In Genesis 1:1, the KJV translates as "created" what in the LXX is "made".

• The ancient Greek word "ποιέω" ≈ "make, do, cause" and is the source of the English word "poem" as in something that is made using words.

In John 1:1, the KJV translates as "made" what in the GNT is "come into being".

• The ancient Greek word "γένηται" ≈ "come into being, take place" from "γίγνομαι" ≈ "come into being, take place".

Is the difference important?

The reflexive application appears again in this verse.


God created time and space and matter as we know it, including information and us.

The KJV translates as "any" the Greek word for "one". This appears to be an expression of the one cookie rule.

The pronoun translated "him" is ambiguous.

• KJV: In him was life ...
• Alternative: In God was life ...
• Alternative: In the logical reasoning was life ...

Information is abstract but important and is not a "thing". John says "he" or "it" made "everything" or "all" and not "every" "thing"

The Greek for "made" is that of "coming into being". How does one "make" information since information, by definition, requires an intelligent entity to be aware of that information?

Saying: Statistics means nothing to a rock.

The pronoun translated "him" is ambiguous.

• KJV: In him was life ...
• Alternative: In God was life ...
• Alternative: In the logical reasoning was life ...

More: Ambiguous statements and perspective

The previous verses says that the "life" was the "light" of "men". The Greek for "shineth" is that of "appearing".

The ancient Greek word "καταλαμβάνω" ≈ "seize, grasp, hold". In context, the word can mean "grasp with the mind" or "comprehend".

To "comprehend" or "grasp with the mind" requires "darkness" to be an "intelligent entity".

Discuss: How can "darkness" be an "intelligent entity"?

The "darkness" appears to be a "false light". That is, one sees physical light or truth or reality in both cases. But one is the true light and one is a false light.

Those following a false light do not want to understand the true light.

How does one tell the difference between true light and false light when, in reality, both appear as physical light?

John then continues with John the Baptist as a messenger from God.


The Greek for "was" is that of "coming into being".

The blind man from birth, just healed by Jesus, is talking. The "of God" is elsewhere translated as "from God" which takes into account what came to be believed later.

Discuss: Might the blind man have meant "from God" when saying this at the meeting of the religious authorities?

In any case, in the next verse they are upset at him and cast him out.

The following question was asked by a student while teaching a graduate software engineering architecture or software engineering project management course (both about 2002). I thought about it and provided the answer given here. Here is the follow-on question for the current discussion.