Best and brightest of what?

Context: See Tru'eng anew, focus going forward, mathematics.

--

We'll be expanding upon this further, as we go along. The context deals with the Streets. Can the Wall ever use integrity without us laughing? Is Main really reliant upon what are the best and brightest of the Wall?

Can they be best and brightest if they don't know virtue from vice? Yes, let's talk that.

See related posts: Fed-aerated and 7oops7.

---

For now, we're pulling from Facebook a comment about a post at Kid Dynamic's blog. Notice that the post deals with cancelling trades, as in golden sacks was let off while another firm had to eat dirt (a lot of it). KD responded to comment to his post, as follows: ... as for predatory behavior: markets are predatory. they're not about charity - every trade I do is with the goal of making money by being smarter than the guy on the other side. that's how it works.. that's the OBJECT..

My comments was, as follows:

We know that golden sacks was let off the hook (as in, trades that they did in error were cancelled - yes, kid gloves for these ones). We also know that an earlier incident resulted in another firm eating a big loss. So, here we see a post and discussion of these two.

Too, we know that things like high-frequency gaming, dark pools, and much more go toward a daily extraction into special (oh, so special) pockets to the detriment of the many. In other words, financial engineering, and other things (computational methods), have made things a shambles, despite the occasional shining of the chimera.

Kid writes about all of this stuff. In one comment, Kid (himself) says: "as for predatory behavior: markets are predatory. they're not about charity - every trade I do is with the goal of making money by being smarter than the guy on the other side. that's how it works.. that's the OBJECT..." Yes, 'tis a direct quote, and, right there, the guy brings out the core issue.

He does characterize the thing properly (as have many others of similar views). I ask, from whence this viewpoint (by necessity, jungle, dwarinian flavoring?) which does not a sustainable economy make? We'll get into that. Does it not seem that such types ought to be wrapped in a strong cloak and provided with a playground (sandbox) with which to work out their little immature fantasies?

That is, these ones ought not be the focus for how things will unfold in the future. Where did we get the notion that the talking heads and their graphical displays and all of the other technical marvels which tell us about the activity of a few (comparatively and to wit, DJIA, et al) ought to set the tone for our daily lives? 

---

That whole notion of predatory necessity is something to address. Look. There was a time that the Vikings, at will, came down and trashed (burned, pillaged, stole) England, time and again. The poor monks could not handle the vicious cultural thing. Thank God for Alfred the Great. But, are the Vikings behaving thusly now? Well, excluding the fact that we could find some types of association on a close look, most descendants of the raiders are nicely civilized (of course, Norsemen had their culture - I'm 99% northern European, by the way).

Just because the wild web, advances in mathematics, and computing prowess both allow the proposition and disposition (used to be left to God) does not make it, by necessity, that we, and our unstable financial realities, revert back to 1000 years ago or so (even if Crusaders seem to be still in the offing).

Remarks:  Modified: 01/06/2015

10/04/2013 -- Oh, yes, two posts (Fed-aerated and 7oops7), but no mention of savers being slapped silly. Notice in the savers post that an image says no bullets left. Ah, yes, Ben panicked and used up his ammo. But, has he not shown all of us (and the world) that there was a whole lot of other maneuvering possible? But, too, does he know that he's cowboy'ed us into a corner?

10/27/2013 --Ben has sacked the savers for years now, slapping them silly. Why? A WSJ article looked at high-class pawnshops a couple of days ago. These fill the need for people who need money but cannot get it from the banks (stupidity there, too). So, they use collateral for a loan and pay high interest. How high? Some pay over 200%, per year. What is Ben paying or having banks pay their savers (customers)? Way less than 1%. That is the best example of being out of whack with economic realities that one could ask for. Yet, does the Fed see? Why is the interest low? To push savers toward higher risk? To appease the gaming crowd (most likely this, as these are big-pocketed folks)? To help people afford housing (on someone else's back?)? ... Janet's take on this is unknown, but she has to know that they're looking like idiots. You know what? Most of those pawn loans are paid, even with the high interest. And, still, Ben slaps the savers (King Alan mentioned saving, of late). We ought to ask the Fed, what happened to prudence or does it like to reward profligacy?

12/31/2013 -- A popular post.

01/08/2014 -- We're patiently waiting for Janet to get her feet wet. At some point, she'll get out of Ben's shadow. Hopefully, it will be soon for the savers who are being slapped silly by the day.

01/05/2015 -- Renewal, see Context line.

01/06/2015 --  Best and brightest: 3rd most read (7'oops7),  1st most read (Tru'eng), 7th most read (FEDaerated). 

Mountains and mole hills

We can think of knowledge'd states (k'dst) as being of two types. Some use 'intelligence' in trying to describe characteristics related to being able to attain a k'dst. For now, let's assume that we know that there are these types of states and there are those who can attain the states which are, principally, humans, at this point, though as Turing conjectured, an artifact (used advisedly, since it could very well have natural properties or could derive from natural sources) may very well attain what now seems to be strictly applicable only to us.

Just look around, and you'll see that examples abound. The general interest in understanding, and measuring, k'dst events has to do with trying to get a handle on what leads to success, and failure (as the adage says, learn from the failures of others). One major focus for the measurement was the US military services' need to know more about those who came together (i.e. WWI) in very huge influx, namely enlistees (or draftees). Another thrust related to educational filtering (e.g. SAT, MCAT, GRE, ...).

Too, on the one side, the goal may be that the best-and-brightest can be determined in each generation and offered what allows for their success; and, then, secondarily and hopefully, the rest of us would have some benefit from allowing this success (trickle-down). On the other side, the motive would be to reduce the cost of failure (ah, if only the Street would learn, that is, to do more than just suck money out of our pockets).

Even those offered special treatment aren't guaranteed to have success. How can it be otherwise when the underlying, ontological, framework can not get away from hard issues like complexity and undecidability?

Aside: Might those who excel at the difficult tests be counseled that hubris can seem, in many cases, to be the most predictable result from having the cognitive abilities that appear to be related to mastering the tests? And, with the Corporation somehow being given person-hood, do not those at the peak (CEOs), seem to exhibit all the hubris-tic leanings (especially, bankers?)?

But, let's get back to the two types. The first is acquired through effort, as we see with certification-oriented work, such as that offered by institutions. The ultimate in our current culture is the PhD in the academic sense or the MD (or DO) in the health care sense. As well, there are various types, with a large enumeration, of certifications related to essential roles for any advanced society (e.g. Pilot, Firefighter, ...).

One can easily use a metaphor of the mountain for this attainment (of k'dst) which is really an accumulation of a whole lot of things, such as information, skill, et al. Some might argue that the modern bane of high specialization leads to knowing more and more about less and less for the academic roles and to the necessity of continual re-learning for many roles, especially those with ties to technology. Essentially, we have many mountains, implying a slew of peaks.

Ah, that point brings up the second type of k'dst which puts the individual, not the academy, its largess or bestowal of approval, at the center. The autodidact, in a myriad of ways, demonstrates this type of k'dst. The main thing here? Self-directedness in developing k'dst both broadly and deeply. In many cases, the resultant viewpoint is very much unique, almost impossible to express for peer review (the basis for the public orientation of science), yet effective for the individual.

Now, in many cases, that k'dst just described is what we find with a true 'leader' (as opposed to the piratical state of the supposedly good managers). Some have used labels, like guru. One could hypothesize the current mania relating to the personal coach's role results from our recognition of the k'dst's value.

We can point to all sorts of other types of success that are not directly attributable to having certification or having tackled some educational experience offered by others. In a certain sense, the individual is always the key.

And, it can be argued that anyone speaking outside of an area of expertise has to do so as an autodidact. Unless, we have a 'know it all' who has acquired PhD-level in all possible fields (encompassing all possible k'dsts), but, even then, what would be the integrating scheme or theme? The question, of course, suggests that the role of the general expert requires a type of integration which can take a lot effort (the blowhard is not being given serious consideration, at this time, however cannot ignore the element due to issues related to the wisdom of crowds phenomenon).

Aside: Financial advisement, folks, is not this type of integration. No, it is product selling type of k'dst. We'll go more into that later.

By the way, the 'peak' can have several uses in the context of this discussion: as an attribute of the acquisition of someone (that is some type of acme of a k'dst), as a type of denotation of the ability of someone (several ways to describe this further), or, as we would hope, as an indicator of a growing heap, through generations, of our collective knowledge.

As Sagan might say, we have piles and piles and ...

The point in this discussion, that will continue under several guises (including t-issues), is to bring forward the autodidact's role, as being important, to any democratic scheme. How else, one has to ask, is the populace not be led like sheep if effort does not go into acquiring the knowledge to know how to decide and to act independently?

Aside: In the current financial situation, people need to take responsibility for their own nest eggs and, actually, help secure those of others from the leeches who are inevitably extant (especially, when gab-standard'd, as now) in situations dealing with money. As, what we have seen, many times, is the 'privatization of profit' (where the fat cats accumulate large pockets) and the 'socialization of loss' (where we little people provide a bail out - without thanks, by the way).

Incidentally, John Galt (and Ayn Rand) have it backwards, unless the modern age has spawned a new breed of best-and-brightest who mostly have their thumbs in their mouths (infantile, yes). It will be the autodidacts' k'dsts, dealing with complicated schemes (take Langan, for an example), upon which the emerging, technologically-advanced, world's advances will rest.

And, some of those are ready to run the economic engine, in a non-profit manner, in order to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" much better than can the so-called leaders of industry.

Remarks:

10/17/2011 -- If we're to challenge Harvard on its duty, then we'll need to beef this up. For one, is education only operationally important, measured in bucks? Ah, so much to discuss.

09/28/2010 -- Capitalism is for the good of us, let's bring that forward.

11/30/2009 -- From 'Our basis' can grow a whole bunch.

11/29/2009 -- Rationality and risk. Need a new look. Too, there are many more knowledge'd states than covered here; it'll be a task to start a numeration.

11/11/2009 -- A moment to honor veterans, and their kin, many of whom are of far more capability than the supposed best-and-brightest. ..., ... A theme to expand deals with command and control (even parenting or coaching). How many times is this thought of as a superposition? The strong leading the weaker. Ah, isn't that the case with CEOs and their hubris? Well, to be fair, it's a human trait to be overbearing. We learn to dampen this. The key issue is that you want autonomous, smart entities who do not need more than an overview now and then with limited updates from the HQ views. Of course, there needs to be feedback so that HQ can learn what their units have found in the field. Hey, isn't that how science is supposed to work? The experimental basis needs to be sound, within the limits of quasi-empiricism. The theoretic view needs to tie to something supportable (we'll go on at length about this - it is now topsy-turvy -thanks, Chaitin). Now, how is the learning experience supposed to raise up such a generation? From what we've seen, this happens anyway for some. Unfortunately, the promise of many generations (of course, we need both success and failures - boomers will figure in the discussion, since their time is about up) is not met; our task is to see how we can improve the odds for the most. It can be done despite the difficulties related to undecidability, etc.

Modified: 10/17/2011

Posts of interest - 2011

As a means (an attempt) to freeze a point in time (which we know is not possible), the last post of 2011 will list the top four posts in terms of having been read (well, views, anyway). Perhaps, this will be a yearly event.

Aside: As said in Mission and Method, posts are to contribute to a theme, though there may be divergent ones from time to time. Blogs allow categories, but these are problematic since they collect and present in a time order. From time to time, there ought to be a super-post that gives a more coherent view (here is an example - Truth, Fiction, and Finance). Perhaps, that type of thing will be done more often in the coming year.

Posts of interest, as of today:

• --  Leverage and truth II -- From 2008. We all love leverage. Engineering has applied this everywhere with all of our gadgets. But, we also know about limbs; too far can be problematic. What about cutting the limb between yourself and the tree? You see, we do this latter with computation. I can explain if you give me time; it's one motivation for what I've been trying to do here for the past few years. Why no hurry?  You see, every bit of time elapse makes the argument stronger. The big problem is that the boys (and some girls) who like risk (emotional failure on their part - this, too, can be explained) do not just incur it themselves. No, they drag along the hapless. The 99% need to get a grasp on the themes of this blog; it's at the core of computational modeling where we can bring in the human element in a way that has only been considered peripheral. 

• --  Last post for 2008 -- From 2008. Too many seats-of-the-pants decisions by the best and brightest keep things in turmoil. Somehow, we've accepted that as the norm. But, then the dryness of a scientific approach becomes more than tedious, it's a distraction. What ought to be the balance, and how do we attain such a thing?

• -- Extrapolation, calibration, truth -- From 2007. So much is wrapped in knowing. Always has been. The newer methods can be more problematic, though, that we've seen in the past. Now, who is to do the knowing? Obviously, the way things are now, not everybody. Perhaps, that will always be. But, would it not be nice to think that those who have the talents, the resources, et al are not just looking out for themselves? Actually, whom can be trusted is a key issue that we'll address, again and again? Also, how we know the value of things is key, too. 

• --  OWS Occupy Wall Street News | Plutocracy Files -- From 2011. Have to love these people who not only put themselves into the class of the 99% but also do something to get attention and to try to attempt change. Before this happened, it seemed that the pall thrown on everyone by the uppers (CEOs, et al) had become an interminable yoke. That is, this pall: if you're not the best and brightest, or if you are not motivated by greed, or a whole number of other things that needs to be listed, then you're of no use. The pall says: we'll export any potential job for you off to the hapless elsewhere who can be more easily exploited; too, we'll make is so that you're indentured forever.   

Remarks:

12/29/2012 --  Summary - 2012.

Modified: 12/29/2012

Summary, 2013

This blog got its start in July of 2007, right before its sister blog (7'oops7). As of today, there have been 199 posts with 16 categories.

The image shows the highest-read posts for the Past 30 days and for All time. Compare this list with last year's.

Past 30 days                                                   All time

It's interesting that a 2008 post has been of interest, of late. That same post is 2nd on the All time list. Too, a 2013 post has gone to the top of the All time list.

---

We'll have to get back to the computablity issues this coming year. Someone needs to address things from other than how one can screw the public (legally or otherwise) into handing over their monies. That is, so much of the modern value system deals with excessive accumulations (If you're so smart, ...). Too, the best and brightest have a wider sphere of influence, thereby we ought to have them under more scrutiny than the average joe. So, why is it best and brightest to be greedy and manipulative?

Remarks:   Modified: 12/31/2013

12/31/2013 --  

Map and territory, again

That in the title was mentioned before, very early (Territory and map and Territory, map, truth). It was over three years ago, before dire things unfolded along several fronts.

So, we now have a skin issue to look at. From a distance, okay, since there is no close tie. Rather, our mode will be collecting examples to show how we have gone awry, along several fronts.

It seems to me that some type of realizability warp has happened in the minds of the educated. Of course, not all of the learned. I want to specifically address those of the quantitative bent (mathematical and computational) and to discuss the issues with any who want to understand how the best and brightest (not only by their greed) have led so many on perdition-laden paths.

One thing that we can do is try to establish where things went awry, using the timeline of mathematics as it unfolded in the twentieth century. That we saw computational prowess explode in so many ways during the last 20 years, or so, exacerbated the problems.

It was noted earlier that things would have to become more technical in focus in order to understand the problems. Berkeley is not the only motivation.

Remarks:

05/30/2013 -- This theme will play within the cosmology of business. Too, Zeno applies in the modern context.

05/25/2011 -- Lemons problem, dark pools, ... Oh, so much to look at!

04/19/2011 -- It was said that engineering has science behind it. What the hell is behind all of the gaming by the idiots in best-and-brightest clothing? That an insanity goes on daily is not seen (from whence, the blindness?); those in power (with their suits, suntans, ...) act with such grace. Somewhat vacuously, do you not think?

The prime characteristic: mutual admiration society! Almost like the 'royal' courts of old.

Modified: 05/30/2013

Truth about money

Truth about money is the title; not following the next craze is the theme. It is not necessary, folks, no matter what you hear about jumping on the train as you are told that it's leaving the station for good. The message is that one can sustain a steady growth toward retirement bliss without the assistance of those who only want to suck your wealth into their pockets.

From time to time, there may be posts that touch on issues related to the big T. For instance, there were a few that mentioned the importance of being and people. Both of these get short shrift in the modern, abstracted views. Being has never been understood inside capitalism; labor (and the hands of people providing such -- including brains, too) was just a resource to be exploited. Oh, labor is given a wage. Ah, yes, minimal, usually. Why? Well, profit and rent take the majority.

Now, that's also related to people who, in the majority, are nothing but pawns. Fat cats (supposedly the best-and-brightest) collect most of the takings. And, at the same time, foster the ruination of the common weal (one example of many). Why? Well, some talk about the majority not adjusting to the new requirements (put here arguments related to those who are of the set that has 60% (or more, thanks Milken) - small set (5%, if that), I might add - is their being on the correct side of the human capital equation). Hey, it's a two way street. Business ran off shore to exploit in their new type of colonialism, namely globalization. Some movements were multiply done, as they chased the lowest denominator in terms of remuneration.

Some companies were wise enough to allow people to pursue further education. Lifelong learning, a very noble cause. But, I can easily identify several subjects that managers (capitalists) need to study -- related to their understanding about profits and rent. Old Adam would love it, I really believe.

Now, money may be a lot of things, but mostly it's a pollutant and poison (highly addictive to some - who go to extremely silly means to obtain - Madoff, et al). We have never got to a type of sustainable notion and its related mode, whose metaphor would probably be biological/medical (see Miliken's recent use of a medical metaphor). Money as blood so to speak.

Ours is always boiling, perpetually, due to bubbles whose bursting causes some pause for reflection. But, before you know it, the bulls (with their balls) [hey, the bear is similarly endowed] start to run amok again. People start to talk about not missing the gravy train as it leaves the station for the next peak of silliness (note, China thinking thusly, jumping on the Hedge Fund bandwagon, despite losing oodles via Blackstone - well, were they ever Communists? well, was anyone? is there some underlying issue related to Confucius that needs some understanding?). Getting on that train is not necessary (we'll go into that, to boot, and lay out how casino capitalism will never support the majority - it's a fat cats game only, like Buffet, et al).

Of course, some might point to the government's re-entrance into the marketplace, after having withdrawn sufficiently to allow the running amok. But, who knows how to resolve the issues of bubble identification (as we heard from Ben's predecessor)? Well, we can do that, folks. Too, some view has to temper that of the profiteers and the rent seekers (wage is seen as pittance thrown to the never-do-well; what?; note that wage can go to human capital as well as rent - actually even physical labor deserves its rent).

Not suggesting answers, yet. Just saying here, that before we run off after the new high and subsequent crash, let's keep up the reflection on the whys, using insights bolstered by new knowledge - hey, we're not like 1930s (academics, aside, sheesh - the whole context is so different now).

Well, let it be known, that we'll continue such analysis here. Oh, by the way, it's been said a time or two that we need to look at where the next craze will be. It might be fun to make that more focused, sort of as the lab to test our hypotheses. Yes indeed.

Too, though, if you've read this far, we can lay out rules that work. Okay. No silliness necessary.

Remarks:

04/03/2011 -- Tis tranche and trash.

03/15/2011 -- The M & Ms are apropos.

01/27/2010 -- It's really ca-pital-sino.

11/30/2009 -- From 'Our basis' can grow a whole bunch.

08/27/2009 -- Madoff exemplifies (albeit somewhat indirectly) systemic risk.

08/24/2009 -- Last year, Ben blinked and panicked. He frantically pulled out all stops as if with no thought for tomorrow. Now, he has no use for 'mea culpa' big daddy that he is. Ben, start to unwind now. The Vienna School's view that these things are undecidable (which is a computational issue) is right on.

08/10/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.

07/31/2009 -- Let's see, 5,000 got over $1M for services rendered. Well, that's probably a sign of being a best-and-brightest, at least to certain eyes; it's called rolling-in-the-dough.

Now, this can be used to illustrate how the game it to fill the pockets of a small set to an exorbitant amount. Does the game need to be that way? Hell no. We'll look at that some more.

07/30/2009 -- Ben rakes (see Remarks) it in, too. An, pity the poor savers. From a look at a serious imbalance: finance can be run by people who can be non-profit in scope (no need for the silly games) and who have an impeccable (oh, what quaintness!) un-interest in money. Yes, it can be so.

07/23/2009 -- We see Goldman raking it in. Too, some of the hedge funds have bled, some almost fatally, while at the same time a few have raked it in. How ought we get the type of accounting done that is required? Expect an econoblog soon.

07/17/2009 -- China is over two trillion in bucks. We? In a deep hole except for old Ben B's printing press.

06/27/2009 -- One can relate the T-issues here simply by considering two things: eye of the needle (note comments from viewpoints of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) and Tolstoy (see 12/02/07 Remarks).

Modified: 08/24/2011

Many truths

One motivation for this post was seeing this headline for an article (WSJ): 'Smart Cities' Will Know Everything About You. The other motivation has to do with talents that get ignored in the modern age which we must discuss and keep in focus.

First, I must mention my reaction to the article. After seeing the headline, I thought, oh no, we have not even, properly, handled issues that relate to "undecidability" (note, please, usage beyond that associated with Turing). Then, the next thought was that this type of thinking is what is behind the growing, insidiously so, cloud that is falling as a mesh on our future and freedoms (and that of our progeny).

Finally, while reading the article, I saw that the ugly crowd called "marketers" kept coming up; yes, those who buy data in order to manipulate people (in finance, this means the gaming of the ca-pital-sino). The article does touch upon the issues, such as privacy, lack of control, and such.

In the end, the writer says that things would not be Orwellian "if businesses act responsibly" (pigs fly?).

---

We have grown dependent upon the engineering/technology viewpoint as it has been known to get things done; progress requires this type of applied science. But, how many modern advances have had deleterious results far beyond any benefit that might have ensued (ah, consider why we need to worry about the enmeshing)? As well, we do have people who sell. In fact, some feel that the economy is mostly made up by consumer activity. Too, some of the Beats (below) pushed financial schemes. Too, we have the artists who support marketing and public relations (respectable, of course - if they behave - who defines the rules?). Then, we have the big pockets (I have left out several classes - say, labor, and many more) who pull things together (some like to coin themselves as capitalists, though they are really oligarchs).

---

Now, let’s get to the other motivation. My cognitive framework is so wrapped around truth engineering's particulars for several reasons. As such, a balanced view is important (we will establish this part of the requirement); balance looks at all sides, even the counterculture (below). And, while reading things like the-above article, the "Beats" come to mind due to the specific time frame of that phenomenon (though, the early American experience had nonconformists, too; actually, the main intent of the emigres was to remove themselves from something to which they could not conform). So, we can use the Beats as the point of origin; post the Beats, we had the Free Speech activities, Civil Rights workings, Hippies lolling about, ..., and, of late, the conglomeration named Occupy Wall Street. In other words, that which has a strong element of iconoclastic-ness and nonconformity has been a continual presence in a not-small part of the population for 60+ years.

Activism, as well, comes to mind; in that case, there are as many variations as there are truths that we need to engineer. Unfortunately, “activism” includes things like hedge funds trying to force businesses to make decisions that maximize the return for their (the hedge fund’s) investors (so much to say there).

---

One thing that needs immediate attention: truth and what it is. People get puzzled about truth, especially about the need for "truth" engineering. I asked a scientist to define truth, without mentioning whether I meant the big or little one (as in "T" or "t"). He, to my surprise, went to the big side without blinking an eye.

You see, science is not (supposed to be) of that ilk (except, is it that Truth and Science are equivalent? - pun). Science deals with a whole lot of little "t's" (though the cosmologists like to browbeat everyone into accepting their "itty bitty" views about the largeness of Creation (intentional big "C" which is at this point unqualified; people have grappled with these things for eons - the new factor deals with computers, networks, and insidious stuff like the cloud - so, we're starting from scratch here - or, taking a constructive approach, if you would) as that worldview of science is supposed to be provisional (very hard for humans to do). Yet, engineers have to firm things up in order to work, so right there is a quandary (engineering as applied science – which tends toward Scientism in too many cases).

---

Recently, I got reminded of an old friend, namely Charles Sander Peirce. You see, his work (as well as that of many others) gives us part of our prowess in abductive approaches. We'll get back to that, for sure.

---

But, to continue on about truth: how many truths are there? Some claim that there are as many as there are people. But, one can bring in situational truths, to boot. Let's just say this, even the big "T" side of things is multiple. Why? For one thing, we have issues of interpretation (which, for the most part, come from free will – yes, how about the neuropeptidergic bag?).

---

And, as we know, a lot of truth has to do with power (all sorts, even that of politicos). That is, overbearing-ness is a common human trait (oh Lord, deliver us). But, of that power ilk, those who score highly on tests  (yes, the so-called best-and-brightest) are of the worst variety (see below).

That is, so what that they can solve problems with a laser-like focus and do so quickly? Consider: is the sum total of all of the possible laser foci reality (yes, that is not a misstatement - look at topology, please)? Well, some seem to think so. Too, are the sum total of all people's views reality?

Aside1: Humans, please, get over yourselves (and your selfies) - that which is called "Pluto" was there long before we became aware of such. The world was here long before your entrance glorified the realm of existence.

Aside2: Yet, were we not made in the Image (purposefully left dangling)?

---

Since people are so involved in truth, and what it is, we can look at categories. For starters, we can take two. On the one side are those who excel at STEM. Now, mind you, some of these are the best-and-brightest. But, no, not all of the b-and-b are good at mathematics. STEMers, for a large part, might do well since they can focus and filter without expending much energy. Others might be more like the turtle (however, in some cases, slow and thorough beats quick and dirty). For instance, some types of dyslexia make it hard to handle things like numbers. There are other examples. Engineers, by design of the discipline, do STEM.

Now, what is the other side? Before we look at that, please be aware that some who are of this ilk can do STEM, too (The blogger – he will quote Von Neumann who said that we do not understand mathematics, we get used to it.  True, operationally. But, mathematics is more discovered than created). So, what is it about this non-STEM side that is of essence? Intuition, for the most part (that which is behind creativity and other great talents).

There is much to discuss, here. But, poets, painters, and others demonstrate the facility. In this case, we will use the Beats as the example of a type of truth processing. The reasons for this choice will be apparent when the discussion continues with a later post.

Remarks:   Modified: 07/27/2015

07/19/2015 -- This post was done using a professional editor implying that a new process will be put into place.

07/27/2015 -- Another poster boy popped up the other day.

Keynes and Hayek

The 02/04/09 WSJ had an oped ("Washington Could Use Less Keynes and More Hayek") about these two whose ideas are centrally used in the debates about economics. A couple of prime factors that are new are the mess and the climate change. The mess is causing we US taxpayers grief as folks like big Ben run off experimenting without any real theoretic basis (does it even exist, as phrased by the western mind?).

The current situation is open, what with the stimulus focus, hedge fund scrutiny, and much more. So, Obama tells the CEOs (money addictive people that they are) to restrain themselves. Oh yes, it's after the horse is out of the barn; they've already lined their pockets with taxpayer money.

One hopes that we can learn from cleaning up all this crap (brought on, mostly, by the best-and-brightest -- ah, yes, these who are divinely favored) and that the hapless obtain some relief.

This might be one area to expand definition and discussion of truth engines.

Remarks:

11/21/2010 -- Three years ago, it was said: Computational foci raise miraculous need. Still applies.

09/28/2010 -- Capitalism is for the good of us, let's bring that forward.

Modified: 11/21/2010

Lordly Prince trap

Context: See Tru'eng anew, focus going forward, mathematics.

--

Following up on the book that supposedly is for government, we have to announce that any business executive can have as much hubris, or even more, than any little civil servant. And, bankers are top on the list.

So, adding to the Eggers/O'Leary list, we'll start with the Lordly Prince trap which relates to an unbounded sense of entitlement for success. Our problem? As we've seen, this entails, a lot, misuse of other people's money and enfringement on the rights of others.

The best-and-brightest are only a part of this set, and CEOs are just about all infected, as a class, with this little defect. This is one side of the Lord/Serf phenomenon and a large factor in out-housing.

Remarks:

01/05/2015 -- Renewal, see Context line.

11/27/2011 -- Continuation, somewhat.

09/28/2010 -- Capitalism is for the good of us, let's bring that forward.

Modified: 01/05/2015

Minsky anew

Everyone ought to know that a lot of what is claimed to be the value that is represented in the market (NYSE, et al) is a hyped bit of nothing for all but a few. Why? Those who get big pockets happen to sell at the top which syphons money to their pocket from the pockets of scores of others. There is no way that all who own stock can get the topmost value. Why? As selling progresses, the price (basis for value) drops.

It's a simple mathematical principle. Yet, oodles of effort and resource go into keeping the game going. Why? Well, so that the few can continue their bonuses and spendthrift ways at the expense of the most.

Need it be that way? No. Can this gaming be controlled? Yes, we can do this despite Alan's grand claim (supposedly now dropped by the grand master) that we can only clean up the poopy diapers and not squelch those who like the bubbles. It will require will and better thinking.

Any who is only after a fatter pocket is not the best and brightest, folks. That is truism one which ought to be learned by poster boys.

Minsky is important to the control effort. We'll look at that further.

The powers that be, of the past few years, wanted us to believe that value was truth and vice versa. Large companies touted this to their employees. Of course, shareholders are important. Answer this? In this downturn, how many shareholders of umpteen institutions lost a whole bunch? Lots, right? Even Fannie and Freddie investors were slaughtered.

So, truth is more than value; the markets are going to require truth engineering. The task is to demonstrate how.

Remarks:

10/17/2011 -- If we're to challenge Harvard on its duty, then we'll need to beef this up. For one, is education only operationally important, measured in bucks? Ah, so much to discuss.

09/09/2009 -- Alan's reign will be looked at, in time.

08/27/2009 -- Madoff exemplifies (albeit somewhat indirectly) systemic risk.

08/17/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.

04/21/2009 -- The above is partly hyperbole that will be contained henceforth. A clarification is necessary in that equity is capital from the view that would relate share ownership to the workings of the firm. This is pretty clear. What is problematic is the abstractionists' add-ons that lead to leverage and froth. They can argue risk management, but it looks more to be just gaming with the intent to foster casino capitalism. Using Minsky again, and numbering the levels, regularized capitalism would go to 2+ (hedge and a little speculative). After that, and especially in the third level, we get Ponzi by necessity.

Modified: 10/17/2011

Turing space

We have known about the Turing test for awhile. There has been progress in passing of this test that seemed far fetched at the time that Turing offered the notion and its context.

We also know that people dumb themselves down in order for systems to work, many times. And, this is mandated by work and bosses so that things, like processes and standard procedures, rule.

Yet, the creative and the free (defined as the monied by some) show that there must be something to human existence that can lift us beyond the angst and existential despair (about work, think Maggie's Farm).

Aside: That the best and brightest think that they are 'it' assumes that there is an army (as in hosts of old) of those who can be trammeled. How else to explain the out-housing mania that left the US without jobs? But, we'll get back to that.

Of course, the motivation for Truth Engineering comes from things related to Turing and more. The emergence of idiocies, via social media and more, seem to be an expanding affair; is there any limit to the dumbness?

The Atlantic's recent story bears some attention which we intend to look at further in this, and related, contexts. Many things need to be discussed: how many think that the map is the territory without a moment's thought?

For now, consider this a note for heads-up caution, if you have not thought about these things and about how they will impact (yes, used advisedly) your life and that of your loved ones.

As well, we can give Turing more of his due, too.

Remarks:

12/13/2012 -- Is it time to move beyond the Turing Test?

03/12/2012 -- We have all year to think of Alan's contributions.

03/08/2012 -- Example modern use of Turing, et al.

03/07/2012 -- 100th of Alan M. Turing.

05/28/2011 -- We'll see 'avatars' galore.

Modified: 12/13/2012

Multisense Realism

Forward: This is a brief summarization of activity on Quora.

Early on in Quora (after about two weeks as a writer), I answered a question (Aug 8, 2015), in which I used psychether. At the time, I had been using the term for years. So, the following sets the usual tone.

How-do-some-people-give-off-a-tough-vibe-without-even-trying-Did-they-go-through-some-hardship-or-have-unemotional-parents/answer/John-M-Switlik

Finally, the important word is vibes. You see, we warp something (explaining how will require, first, some semblance of sanity on the part of those who carry the so-called best-and-brightest label) that I call psychether in a manner that is analogous to what our friend Albert showed with our matter (as in, our smiling-or-not faces and their attached body) warps space-time. If the questioner is a vibe reader, we want to hear more.

Notice that I mention Einstein's work as that has been a motivation all along. Of course, the phenomenon of psychether involves a lot more than human interaction.

One of the things I started to do on Quora was sync with my blog posts. As I was doing this work, I did a search on the term and found that there had been other uses. A musical group used this as a title for a CD plus there was at least one userid of this name. So, I did this post, psychether, on Aug 11, 2015. The post shows an image from mid-1990s entry in a database that used the term in relation to my research. This is to establish the precedence though the term itself does not do more than suggest something about the operational aspects.

--- On MR ---

Later on Quora, I ran across the concept of Multisense Realism (MR) while browsing questions. The concept and thoughts struck a chord. Because of theme resonated with psychetheral issues, I answered the question. The question was formulated in the fall of 2012; my answer was last Friday, Sep 4, 2015).

      Does-MR-Help-Explain-Consciousness/answer/John-M-Switlik

Now, taking this further, there is a website plus a Facebook page for MR.

       multisenserealism.com/
       www.facebook.com/solitropy

Finally, having run across this work, I began to pull together my thoughts. One thing that the MR questioner noted was that people could find usefulness for and apply his concept without going all the way to spirituality or metaphysics (my interpretation).  

--- Space-time++ ---

So, I will now do a brief look at my recent musings in this regard. Of course, a lot of my work bordered on metaphysics. However, I spent my career working in geometry, meaning that I touched all the time the mathematics related to differential geometry. In the back of my mind, I was ruminating on early work which goes back decades and how all of this relates.

My original thrust had several motivations which I will get to eventually. Given that I was working alone, except for occasional discussion with some peers (to be named), the sole criterion was my own understanding. But, science has to be public to be. And, public is more than the fact of a special interest group.

Of late, it had occurred to me to take another step. I had already addressed some of this thought in either/or terms. There are several posts along this line, but they come from a claim that harmonizes Anselm and Pascal (Blaise, if you would) with the modern views. In my mind, I might add. You see, some supposed smart folks are being idiotic. One side calls the other blind while the blind call their accusers delusional.

Too, people are running after larger and larger experiments. Sheesh. Let's just use the whole planet as a laboratory. Wait, has that not already happened?

So, of late, I have been thinking that all we need is one little addition that would answer all sorts of questions. Too, we could have some type of reasonable response that is obvious (hence, scientific). But, what is that?

We'll get there, but let's use a reminder from the early days of computer evolution. We had a stage where we had 2 1/2 dimensions as we were not quite ready to handle 3D? Actually, in the 2G to 3G wars in telecom, we had something similar.

So, we'll talk ST++, as in space-time plus-plus. What is this? There are rules about how one goes about this type of thing. But, I'm going to appeal to von Neumann when he said that we don't have to understand mathematics, we just get used to it. As in, if it works, why have to explain? But, human nature wants to tear things apart.

MR brought in a more wholistic approach. There have been others. Lots. So, I will look further at this. Too, though, I will be going back to work beyond harping at people. I have been blogging about truth engineering since 2007. I first wrote up the discipline in 2000 and have slowly been working things (alone).

During this time, I have calmed myself with Faraday's work. That is, he was an early experimenter who helped get theoretics settled. Michael was about 40 years older than James Clerk Maxwell, for example. Why does the analogy having a tie in with electromagnetics? Look at MR's approach.

Too, this work is being done in a autodidact mode.

---

So, I have become convinced that an operational approach is now suitable to bring forth. There are many analogs from computing: closures, extensions, etc.

I had hoped that the internet would be amenable to gathering the data. And, that may be a more viable thought now than before, except there is so much noise now. Fortunately, a lot of my work dealt with reducing this type of interference.

My next step will be to look at MR further; too, I want to document all of the different views that I have run across over the years. At the same time, I will work on firming up my hypotheses (several) sufficiently that they could be discussed.

Remarks:   Modified: 09/07/2015

09/07/2015 --

Ultimate game

In the gaming that is finance, we have several viewpoints to ponder as we look at the decline of dreams. Who is to know where things are going? Ben, of the Fed, talks his game. Dr. Doom touts nationalization. William M. Isaac says no way (WSJ, "Bank Nationalization Isn't the Answer").

One thing that we know is that nationalization would wipe out a class of shareholders. Guess what? The favored class of shareholders would get their money. Wait! Something stinks. Why ought we, the common people, even look at equities?

The finance people have argued for the market and equities. Yes, they want the gaming that such supports, as we see with the CBOE. Essentially, the whole thing is not much more than casino capitalism. It makes a few rich, offers plenty when there is really not much, and then trashes a whole generation.

As well, we get people with their hands in the till, as we've seen with Madoff, Stanford, the WG mess, and others. Plus, hedge funds are a front for what?

Well, it's been said that more of the same will be uncovered.

Near zero means that no-one makes money without taking it from the pockets others. How this is done and is controlled will be (ought to be) very much the essence of a society and its future, as we will continue to see.

The economy and ecology have parallels. You pollute the waters or the air, and it affects your neighbors. And, much more.

Who said that the problems were easily resolved, by the way? It's just that the golden and the best-and-brightest (ah, yes, and the favored), for awhile, reigned as supreme. Hah! It was a wonderful day, in a sense, to have the golden boys/gals come to us, the common taxpayer, with hats in hand (oh, flying, to boot, to DC with their tin cups extended). Yet, many of the hapless suffer from the idiocies of those few and favored.

Remarks:

01/27/2010 -- It's really ca-pital-sino.

10/11/2009 -- Discussion has gone over to FED-aerated. Note the 10/11/2009 Remarks about the Business Week article on India's progress' inhibitors. 'Near zero' recognizes that some always suffer more than others, especially in win-win situations, as the whole notion of characterization minimizes visceral reactions by diminishing the real in favor of the abstracted (ah, the modern world, you say?).

08/27/2009 -- Madoff exemplifies (albeit somewhat indirectly) systemic risk.

08/24/2009 -- Last year, Ben blinked and panicked. He frantically pulled out all stops as if with no thought for tomorrow. Now, he has no use for 'mea culpa' big daddy that he is. Ben, start to unwind now. The Vienna School's view that these things are undecidable (which is a computational issue) is right on.

Modified: 01/27/2010

Truth engineering

This blog started two years ago with the purpose of looking at issues of computation interacting with being (ourselves, so to speak). That is, we have expertise which has been honed through myriads of years and which has been extended through generations by memes and which is still not sufficient to cover a whole lot of problems (yes, the infamous world hunger, getting a project done on time, and more) that is not capable of handling computing (and truth) without some significant changes (and, it's more than just handling hogwash).

Oh, yes, there are plenty of worldviews with answers already determined even though our experiences can indicate (except to those best-and-brightest who are completely entralled with their own mind's eye) that underdetermination is really our most frequent state (and we learn to make guesses to fill gaps - albeit this can be fun, too).

So, the original issues being addressed were general, such as things in themselves, tribal dynamics, temporal influences, the sirens of abstraction, those who know it all. There may have been a leaning toward engineering in the beginning as the focus for discussion, but finance/economics soon raised its head as of interest to the theme.

As it turns out, both engineering and economics have been unending founts of examples that can be used for motivation and illustration. The 787 controversies of the fall of 2007 created the need for a look at those issues, and that caused an engineering focus for awhile. In fact, the first post, beyond the Seeds, was looking at abstraction's appeal which has a very strong pull.

Just, look at the mess of the economy due to faulty mathematics.

That economics could offer such a wide range of topics related to truth engineering became apparent as engineering does work for the most part (are we not besieged on all sides by products demonstrating engineering prowess?).

We will show that it's the manager mindset that get things screwed up. Over the past couple of years, plenty of the discussion about the looming problems of the economy was right on. It was obvious that things were awry due to fundamental issues and, now we might add, that many of these were not resolved in the crash.

The past few days has the WSJ exclaiming that Goldman Sachs is making money hands over fists. Well, didn't they get a bailout too? Fold themselves under a wing of a government shelter for protection (ain't that so sweet?)?

You see, GS represents that part of the economy that is hardly useful (though, leeches do have an acknowledged medical use) except for its abilities to do the major sucking out of the pockets. Who is looking at their stuff in detail?

Well, will the new day handle these issues or will we just go back to the normal idiocy of a game run by fat cats that consumes lots of resources in maintaining itself and that, for the most part, is not necessary - yet, seems to be taken as some extreme example of the virtues of capitalism?

Oh, of course, casino capitalism.

Remarks:

11/30/2009 -- From 'Our basis' can grow a whole bunch.

09/09/09 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework.

09/08/2009 -- System risks are still there.

09/03/2009 -- Computational foci raise miraculous need. Yes, we need to talk NP and more way to cope. Take, for instance, truth maintenance which is NP, yet that is no deterrent for the effort covered by the blog. Why? Ah, we're getting to that.

09/02/2009 -- Lean assumes a current framework which can be improved. That the process is still effective during the change can be checked easily. However, if it is not still effective or we do not have a stable framework, then we were, by necessity, in the undecidable state.

Modified: 11/30/2009

Setting the stage

There is much to be done in bringing truth engines (big issue to handle, ontological uncertainty) to the fore as the attempt will be truly multi-disciplinary in scope.

Surveying the landscape of ideas is always apropos in this context. The WSJ (weekly reflection, book reviews, opeds) seems to be a continual source for nuggets.

-- Putting spooky science to work (a WSJ reflection) -- about quantum entanglement, its possible uses, and some interpretations (science cannot explain being - but engineering can manipulate it).

-- Defying Doom (WSJ book review) -- temporal milestones, easily forgotten in the speed, and shallow depths, of the modern age are nice for allowing us to look at the longer term (ah, has the finance business heard that it's possible? - nope, for them it's bonuses and getting their mansions built). That 'large' and 'small' can be seen as more than just involving 'macro' and 'micro' issues ought to be discussed more. It's interesting that some of the 'big' institutions in 1000 were not that universal. Now, we have this globalized machine that pulls money from the pockets of the hapless to that of the few (the fatter cats, by their definition smarter).

-- If I don't see it, It's not there (WSJ book review) -- one has to love the use of "sheer delusional cheek" in describing some efforts at helping people to improve their situation that tout "Create your own reality ...". One has to consider that though 'truth' may be cognitively contrived, with computationally confounded issues, yet something does persist through time and across generations that is more than fat cats acquiring, and eating, more than they ought.

-- Easy Credit and the Depression (WSJ oped) -- about the book by Posner (he of the joint blog) putting the blame on the government and not the capitalists (see blog at Atlantic Monthly). Oh yes, like the fat cats are without any culpability due to some notion that the economy is purely darwinistic and that the regulators know (can know) what they are doing. If the guy wasn't a judge (and old enough to know better), I'd question his grasp on reality.

Ah, spooky science can come to the rescue. A related concept to discuss will be undecidability.

Remarks:

10/17/2011 -- If we're to challenge Harvard on its duty, then we'll need to beef this up. For one, is education only operationally important, measured in bucks? Ah, so much to discuss.

05/08/2009 -- Looks like Posner will continue his discussion which is great. He takes economists to task in this op-ed (WSJ) describing where things went awry in his view. It's not a bad overview, but some details could be picked on. Like his non-mention of the fact that financial instrumentations (ill conceived by the supposedly best-and-brightest) were applied in a cacaphony meant mainly to lure folks into allowing their monies to be give to the fat cats. But, Posner is taking the 30K view. Don't worry we'll get to the real details here (and through them eventually).

It's nice, though, to hear from a judge whose purpose is to support law and order. Ah, but he allows those in finance too much laxity. Gosh Judge Posner, it's like you wouldn't mind the convicts running the jail. Oh, wait, he's recognizing that we have an institution; he hasn't yet awakened to the fact that those in it are idiots and crazy (perhaps, too strong, but they don't exhibit much adult awareness of humanity and other common themes, in my mind). Sorry, Judge, dwarinism is not what needs to be argued when law and order are at stake.

05/07/2009 -- Why the remark about Posner? Well, he's a judge. He ought to see some parallels here. Like this: would he allow a parent to seriously abuse a child? would he allow a bully to wreck havoc in a playground? would he allow a misfit to harm innocent people in a deadly manner (or even less than deadly)? I could go on. That capitalism is supposed to be about sharks is pure idiocy and of an extreme ideological stance. We are to be adults and act thusly if peaceful coexistence is to become a reality.

By the way, many of the arguments that I see the bonus takes and CEOs making seem not unlike a toddler wailing to get its way in the case where the parents are quite adept at taking care of the needs.

I like that Posner is so talented in his expressions, yet he has to know that having English as an initial discipline left many questions from being asked by himself let alone his trying to get an answer. On the other hand, science and engineering education can unbalance a view, to boot.

Those types of issues, related to views as they are influenced by various disciplines, are very much apropos to truth engineering. Of course, the judge might tell me that law is the truly balanced viewpoint. Oh yes, we can eat lawyerly output? The Economist magazine recently said that lawyers argue from first principles; funny, I thought that engineers did that too, Ah, are we talking the same first principles? Interesting.

Modified: 10/17/2011

Homo economicus

Pope Benedict has good timing in writing about Homo economicus as we will be better able to look at some big-T issues, from time to time. Ah, we now need something similar about engineering.

It's interesting to see the reaction from the news community (many of these are business fluent).

• USA Today
• BBC
• CBC
• Globe and Mail
• Economist
• WSJ
• ...

The list is just a sampling and does not indicate any order or agreement with the reviews. We'll deal with the Encyclical's content itself, from time to time, pointing back, of course, to prior discussion here.

Remarks:

02/09/2013 -- This year, we'll get more into t-issues. Plenty of people are looking at science/religion topics. Too, Dawkins was quoted as saying that the existence of God ought to be subject to a scientific test. This can be arranged, given the right framework. Perhaps, I'm too old to see it, but its day will come. And, with its advent, we would not have an explanation, necessarily. The benefit? Progress of a nature not seen due to the dampening related to not allowing the broader views. Mind you, science getting into religion may help root out all of those accumulated bits of dross which are so problematic (too many to name here, but I would attempt such an enumeration if there were interest).

01/22/2013 -- T-issues will migrate to issues of science and religion.

01/01/2011 -- Paul as CEO.

08/10/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.

07/31/2009 -- Let's see, 5,000 got over $1M for services rendered. Well, that's probably a sign of being a best-and-brightest, at least to certain eyes; it's called rolling-in-the-dough.

Now, this can be used to illustrate how the game it to fill the pockets of a small set to an exorbitant amount. Does the game need to be that way? Hell no. We'll look at that some more.

07/29/2009 -- This theme will be central to the new econoblog (leaning toward FEDaerated), especially as we deal with people issues, yes, more than labor to be exploited under outsourcing as colonization.

02/09/2013

The train

Oh, the train is leaving the station. Better hurry and get on board.

We'll be hearing that a lot, given the recent surge in the markets. Some will be tempted to buy in; many have, otherwise the rally would not exist.

What is behind this mania (best way to characterize the problem)? Well, casino capitalism lies at the basis. For some reason, our lawmakers keep letting the sirens pull them to choices that are not good for us in the matter.

Not that there aren't related hard problems that can give us grief. What's wrong with stepping back and taking a good look. That is, stop this so-called train; yes, halt the markets. It has happened before.

There are other things to consider, such as, let's unravel those supposedly too big to fail entities that are the giant suckers of value out of the economy.

Remarks:

03/05/2013 -- Ben reigns, but the savers' faces are bruised from his slapping.

10/25/2010 -- Capitalism, as known now, requires an endless supply of suckers.

04/16/2010 -- Rotten to the core. Does not have to be!!

01/27/2010 -- It's really ca-pital-sino.

11/20/2009 -- Societe Generale is getting negative?

11/10/2009 -- Glass-Steagall, again. Why not? Also, more on the gab standard.

11/08/2009 -- The gigantic chimera needs proper attention.

11/07/2009 -- Actually, there is a train, or, at least, we can use the train metaphor to discuss the economy's purpose and how finance has evolved into a problem (in medical parlance, not unlike a cancer) within that purpose. In other parlance, we can see that funny money (as determined by the FED) actualizes into delusional corners (the push for large mansions, etc.) since there is no being involved. In this sense, the lowly workers' grasp of reality (albeit, painful that it can be - what with the lopsided accumulation of wealth into a few hands - plus, mistreatment by the likes of bankers) is much more firm than is that of the best-and-brightest.

Modified: 03/05/2013

Renewal

Five years ago, the intuition of the blogger was good, in that most advanced work seemed to honor the denseness of semidecidable systems. And, that is being kind, as most argued that we did not have any need for concern for decidability for ‘finite’ systems. Too, we knew that the standard model had been successfully tweaked over a 100 years or so. Having this success made us lean toward hubris.

But, in actuality, if you look at the world (today or anytime), there are many more “unknown unknowns” (recent look via 7óops7) than our old friend Rumsfeld would admit to. Of course, the craziness that occurred late in the year of 2001 had a real and visceral effect; it was too easy prior to that for some to have an unreasonable comfort about our being untouchable in the area bounded by the two large bodies of water. We are still trying to unwind out of effects from those, and later, events.

At the same time, though, some of those who could [have] exploited the observed success of certain methods by growing the ‘chimera’ way beyond its rational basis. That is, the methodical approaches from physics (at many levels) were brought out to build the apparati that run the markets. If you must, sleight-of-hand keeps the take of some as a perpetual sequence (right there is part reason for the bad smells) while obfuscating the reality by trickery and faulty mathematical arguments.

--

From the first post, the blogger has been suggesting that various mis-applications are the norm and that these are enabled by the growing computational frameworks. You see, the basis is essentially undecidable (which we’ll show); our progress has largely been predicated upon the luck of smart people (we’re in deep dodo, people); yet, we have the charlatans arguing that things are (would be) great if we continue to follow them on the path to perdition.  

--

If we can identify the alleged misdeeds, ought there ensue an orderly discussion about what to do? If only. As it then becomes a conflict between truth and power (and we know, just look at the current election, power has its basis in money – truth, on the other hand, is not of money – this, too, we’ll show).

Not that we expect a fairy-tale ending, but one can still think (and cannot be faulted for thinking) that realizations would be required in order to bring some clarity into situations. But, with Corporations seen as people (in what reality is such a thing conceivable?) the whole environment has changed. The blogger will not be the cynic who thinks that resolution is not possible, but we have our work cut out for us.

The initial focus on how abstraction's appeal has led us astray was correct and will continue. The topic needs to be further clarified.

---

Now, in regard to the economic mess, before the time of the start of the blog, some of the rumblings of structures quaking were already heard by some. Many were awakening to the fact that we were going to experience some type of downturn. What was unexpected was the non-stop exposure of stupidity (idiotic notions being widely disseminated by brilliant minds) almost on a daily basis, the deep depth of the crap that was put there by our leaders, and the length of time in which there has been no resolution of the underlying issues (perps still walk).

WTF! Again, WTF!

All sorts of descriptions are possible, such as the old Rip one waking up to this fact, after a couple of decades or so: the best and brightest were given that label precisely for the fact that they could fill the pockets of the fat cats -- to be defined, again – and themselves (ah, FB is more than a metaphor; it’s a poster boy, to boot).

Remarks:

08/08/2012 -- We need the effectiveness (unreasonable or not) to be cast in a new light. Curiosity Rover, et al, is an example of how things can go. 

08/05/2012 -- Added pointer to updated look at unknowns via 7'oops7. Some editing (periodicals have teams plus an iterative process, yet you'll see typos now and then (more frequently nowadays with computer assist being the vogue) -- several lessons in that, perhaps). 

Note: See comment on using another approach, below. Need to tweak it. All the style information that was carried over is troublesome. Oh well. Of course, I know how to filter out and get minimal HTML, but why is it seen as smart (or progressive) to bring in this type of crappy assistance (not any better than it was a few years ago)? 

08/04/2012 -- Weakness? Yes, indeed. 

08/04/2012 -- This was the first post that was developed in a modern editor and then copied to the blog editor. We'll try that for awhile. Having the more intuitive interface ought to help expositions formulate. 

Modified: 08/07/2012