At some point, the truth to be
engineered will need further definition, to which goal these posts are working. That truth can be talked about with a big T or little t will be considered; that truth many times deals with ‘things as they are’ is important.
For the purposes of starting small and since 'truth engineering' pertains to the computational, we can put the big Truth aside for a later time and limit the scope (for now) to that which is human created. Modern computing supports applied analytics where we may or may not see a clear demarcation between what is being modeled (thing in itself) and the model.
CAE is one example which deals with types of simulation; another is
flight simulation. Other examples will be looked at later.
Flight simulation has improved such that a simulator can be used to substantially train a flight crew; too, it can provide feedback about design choices which ties back into CAE, say in the context of a new airplane. Yet, no matter the extent to which a simulator represents a flight, we can know that we have a difference between a real flight in an airplane and an experience in its simulator (which only takes you on a virtual flight).
Consider this, though. If one were blindfolded, could one tell the difference between being in a real good simulator versus being on a plane that is actually flying? There are several variations to this theme that might be interesting to explore.
One concern of truth engineering deals with issues such as this one.
Complicating the situation is that some ‘thing’ may itself embed models that represent other ‘things in themselves’ leading to a recursive dilemma. Again, a plane may have sensors and actuators which require computational support.
Does the combination of things (where ‘in themselves’-ness can be resolved) and models (and we have seen that models can also embed things) lead to requirements for truth engineering?
Much of our comfort in our analytics may be well-founded, yet we ought to keep in mind those issues related to
quasi-empiricism and, perhaps, our foundational weakness.
Remarks:
11/07/2009 -- We need to use this concept to explain how
funny money leads to the problems as we see now. Yes,
a train is leaving the station, we are told. Don't miss it! Oh, yes, train to nowhere
for the most. Don't fall for the hype, folks.
07/05/2009 -- Recent comments point to
too strong beliefs in the computational. In regard to the flight simulator, we could use it to propose a 'being' test analogous to the
Turing test for intelligence. You see, blindfolding would fool the eyes, one could make noises. But, how would one
fool the nose and the intuitive sense?
05/18/2009 -- With things
kicking up dust again, we'll need to re-address these issues related to truth, being, computation, et al.
01/26/2009 -- The engineering comes about due to
truth engine-ness.
11/06/2008 -- Gosh, things
fell apart right before the election
08/01/2008 -- It turns out that a good discursive domain for these issues relates to
money and what it is, including how its roles are important to our well being.
02/24/2008 -- This post dances around some of the intrinsic issues, for good reasons; yet, the topic must be tackled in order to unfold further the issues related to truth engineering.
01/17/2008 --Given that the unknown unknowns are raising their heads, and that parametrics seem to be a main truth stick, this concept needs to be re-addressed with better examples.
12/30/2007 -- This early post still stands, though it may need an update such as some words dealing with calibration and truth. That we have become dependent upon computers is irreversible; actually, we need to embrace the phenomenon as the younger generation seems to have. There are lots of questions to ask and ponder about how we get these things under control (example was the emergence of wild-west behavior as the web opened frontiers - not unlike the old-gunslinger west of the US's manifest destiny).
A new category of T-issues (big T!!!) will be looked at more in 2008 than we have seen so far.
Modified: 05/28/2011
