Territory, map, truth

As we deal with Territory and map issues (or confusion), assessing truth (via various truth engines) will require methods and tools, some of which are provided by nature (or otherwise), many we will need to develop.

Short of constant readings from sensors (to be defined, for now consider the nose) embedded in the evaluator's body, we need (and do have now) mechanisms, of which using the web for polling, technical analysis of a market, or political polls are examples.

That some techniques, such as bet2give, remove the aspect of greed may be of interest.

Of course, some types of registers (like we see with weather [temperature]) will be founded upon our knowledge obtained through science and applied through engineering. Others will be more of a 'map' flavor, yet tied to human-based assessment.

That could bring up a question of how what's suggested may differ from the operational processes of mathematics, with its long history of continuous improvements and observed effectiveness.

But, it is still unsettled how all this ability to handle and to use abstractions came to fore, works, seems persistent, and such. Using the nose metaphor might provide a starting point.

You see, the emphasis on elegance and beauty doesn't account for something that may very well have a value to be considered, the skunk (metaphorically, of course).

Let me just put out two slogans, there will be more.

• Slogan 1: 'truth' is not known at the limits of abstraction; rather, 'truth' is found in reality. Thanks to Joel Orr.
• Slogan 2: Why differentiate when you can integrate? JMS

Perhaps, further discussion ought to pause while we consider these two.

Remarks:

01/20/2013 -- Change link for bet2give. 

12/13/2011 -- Nitty gritty truth.

05/28/2011 -- Later concepts: Turing space, map/territory, and avatars.

04/19/2011 -- We have to get back to the basics.

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

09/09/2009 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework.

08/18/2009 -- Applies for both macro and micro views.

07/05/2009 -- It's taken awhile, but this message is becoming more apropos all the time.

12/18/2008 -- Well, things really fell apart in the 3rd Quarter of 2008. Factors include the players and the games. Now, games include using mathematics erroneously, as in getting an aura from the use of derivatives (to be discussed further). So, we'll have to re-address this map/territory issue.

08/01/2008 -- Actually, we have the perfect domain for discussing this issue which covers a gamut in its roles and is of phenomenal importance, namely money and what it can represent, as well as how it ought to do its representation. Especially is this so in that the modern financial realm has been engineered to the max with outcomes that are obviously apparent in their undesirability.

Modified: 01/20/2013

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

Mathematics I

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

---

Introductions:

Our collective friend, Hitchens, said many things that we ought to think about now and then. And, based upon the websites that are quoting Hitchens, there are many who are doing just that. One of his quotes actually made it to the TED (deals with current, and future, technological issues) site.

In short (paraphrased), assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. When I first saw that quote being reported in some web page from some source (actually, Google brings up several sites - but, my first awareness was several years ago), I felt that I would have responded to him, something like this (had I the quick wit under the spotlight and were in his presence): like axioms? You see, Hitchens was many times pushed beyond the point where he said that he didn't know. Yes, he said "didn't know" many times; but, either given his inherent talent at showmanship or mere frustration at putting idiots in a bottle or whatever other motive, Hitchens would go off on his erudition-showing response (sometimes, these were rants - however, well considered and stated).

---

Aside: Some attribute the quote to Richard Dawkins who made a similar statement. Wikipedia points to what is known as Hitchens' Razor with references. And, it's really a re-phrasing of an age-old slogan.

---

A constructive look:

Hitchens did not deal with mathematics, but he did respect results that were founded upon such. You see, that would be most of modern scientific models ("most" is arguable; however, we're talking 2000 plus and the fact that about every discipline has mathematized its knowledge base - many times to a large degree -- I ask, what discipline with any modicum of a quantitative does not use advanced statistical methods?). So, who of the modern domains has not used mathematics?

It turns out that there may be many who are not so learned (not meant pejoratively). As, this revolves around a central issue related to numeracy, or lack thereof, that has insidious implications for the future. We'll get back to that. Expect though, for me to show that numeracy limits us, many ways (not arguing against the great ideas founded upon numbers and the computational -- rather, consider, can our artifacts subsume Being?).

The basics:

We'll first have to deal with what exactly is this thing called "mathematics?" We can start with a few little pointers here and branch out. Please note, this approach is pseudo-constructive (albeit, not to the level of Bourbaki - yet, effective in its own way, as we will show).

Pythagoras

1. An encyclopedia is a good place to start: Wolfram's MathWorld comes to mind. I have watched this grow (and, even, to a small extent, contributed). As well, the Wikipedia view is phenomenal (actually, what I love about Wiki is that I can look at something (that is well-sourced, usually) without running down myriads papers and books). By studying this type of material, one could get a fairly good idea of what mathematics is, though several issues, such as motivation, would not be as apparent as could be. As Plato thought, arithmetic can be one of the starting points for mathematical education. Geometry, and its use in our world, is the next step. 
2. We can also take a behavioral view and say this: mathematics is what mathematicians do (this little thing out of St. Andrews is wonderful - please look at the Mathematician of the day page). If we cared to study all that has been done, then we might have some idea of what this field encompasses. But, much of mathematics is mental (and, we don't normally expect people to read minds). One may see symbols and numbers, yet, their use is not always intuitively obvious. On the other hand, we can see what has been labelled under the concept, even if future perturbations, and extensions, would not be seen using this descriptive approach. However, there is one little thing that lurks: is mathematics more than what people do (next bullet)?  
3. Ah, metaphysics coming in? Let's keep it simple, as we could discuss, for a long time, what might be called the differences between big "M" (Mathematics) and little "m" (mathematics). How can we circumvent that? You see, if you look at MathWorld (or what Mathematica does), you'll see all sorts of operative marvels (basis of STEM) with results that astound (our technological age) when looked at closely. Yet, just ask yourself if the reality behind whatever is being expressed (or computed or manipulated) by our artifact (assuming small m, okay?) is equivalent to what we understand via our use of the artifact? Another way to think of it is to consider the map-territory problem. First, extend "map" to encompass the sum total of our prowess with mathematics. The territory? Yes, we would really like to know (but it's not the former). In short, we tend to get these two merged (map-territory) as there seems to be no real way to do the differentiation (ability to note differences) many times (as in, that particular action is underdetermined - note, please, the poster is very much aware of proof-theoretic powers - yet, the poster sees the importance of being aware of quasi-empiricism and its issues).   
4. Is mathematics that which can be built from axioms and proofs? We all know that mathematics involves theorems. Some of these are applicable to our lives; others are beyond the comprehension of most (if you listen to von Neumann, he would say beyond the comprehension of any - see first quote). Now, there are many ways to argue proof methods, but logic is involved. Then, that brings in knowledge and how we know. Also, we need to consider Russell's and Whitehead's efforts to put a firm basis under logic. It took hundreds of pages to get to proving (by terse equations) simple addition which we can teach early on to the human mind. Too, Russell, and later work, brought in computablilty issues which may or may not be problematic to the future of automation (ah, letting the cat out of the bag - the web is laden, heavily with pseudo-mathematical pursuits what need our scrutiny).           

Now, that listing is not trivial. But, the list does include the important things and has a progression that we'll be looking at in depth (basis for truth engineering's necessity and operational look).

1. What? We know that we have mathematics and its use; such is abundantly evident. Much work in mathematics has been done over the years. The web has allowed an acceleration of means to get access to information about mathematics and provides a common platform for discussion and use. Marvelous techniques exist. The trend seems to be toward automation of some of these. The truth, folks, is that higher-order computation (as in advanced mathematics) requires, generally, human involvement in two, and perhaps more, areas. One is input (see the qualification problem as an example -- numeric processes have oodles of decision states prior to execution - in other words, setting up a solution attempt is a creative task). Then, we have output issues dealing with more than interpretation. For instance, ramification is important. 
2. Who? We see people doing mathematics. Only some of those are involved with computation. But, certain classes of problems are computationally oriented and will continue to be so as technological progress improves computational artifacts and methods (of a very wide variety). That there is motivation to learn and do mathematics seems obvious, too. We have not seen a decline in the interest. More later. 
3. Where? As we use mathematics, the larger picture does not go away. But, we'll defer all of that til later. 
4. How? As, there is controversy about hubris and its appearance. It's almost impossible to know this up-front. In retrospect, we see it, or think that we do, many times. Unfortunately, right now, we have the finance community running off after multitudes of seemingly smart approaches; we need to push some type of sand box (or, at least, now, some notion thereof) into the awareness of these, folks; this we would like to demonstrate.

---

As stated at the start, there was some nod to Hitchens in this post albeit we are dealing with mathematics. The content here takes a broad view and tries to identify the major pieces. Getting into all of the nuances will be on-going, albeit the looks will be more broad than deep (for awhile, at least - at some point, we'll have to take on a few of the more important points in a technical manner).  

Remarks:

06/25/2015 -- ACM Communications had an article (Created Computed Universe) that suggest that our computional prowess ought to lead to agnosticism rather than to anything else. Of course, my initial remark: So many modern minds conjure and contort in order to introduce what is not much different than what some knew many millennia ago in the desert.

01/23/2015 -- Software? Well, we are talking more than apps (latest craze). We are dealing with fundamental questions which, then, gives rise to normative issues in mathematics (and, by extension, to the computational).

01/05/2015 -- Added context line at top. We're at a renew point.

03/03/2014 -- Acknowledgements, including math pedigree, will be expanded.

08/06/2013 -- Investigative journalism likes its Five Ws. That is fine for their topical views. To get technical, we have to add in, at least, an H (How?). Too, we need to change the order, according to various factors: domain, focal area, and more.

So, the order of the above list is "What?, Who?, Where?, How?."  There are other orders. For instance, "How?" have could come before "Where?" in the list. That, though, would have changed the emphasis (recall, truth engineering is the overarching theme).

We're ignoring Why? (why not?) and When? (ah, history of mathematics -- the future, too?).

08/05/2013 -- In this interview, Hitchens uses "horribly un-reflective" (around 12:00) in response to his Iraq stance's outcome (turmoil amongst those who wondered where he was coming from?) and whether he had, or not, tempered the position that he taken at the time. So he admitted to being reflective, which we would all have known anyway. As said above, lots of his positions were forced by reacting to idiots and their attempts to master him.

Modified: 06/25/2015

Effort and truth

From a cynical view (and in many situations today), we get our information fed from some PR machine which we are to take passively. Opinions differ about the amount of believability we can assign to such phenomena. Though, there are laws that attempt to maintain that information is not too problematic.

In more analytic terms, we always have a disparity between substance and surface; we just expect that the mappings that project from interior information to the exterior are not manipulated beyond some reasonable extent (that which is necessary).

Whether we put forth effort to go beyond the message depends upon several things, such as whether there is money involved (we want to control book cooking), whether there is personal interest (an extreme example would be the airplane), and more.

Actually, any effort requires resources, getting back eventually to money. Regular assessments of 'truth' will be costly, hence we would want them to be effective.

Opinions, without any backup, are easily captured using blogs and comments. Would one weight more heavily a signed comment as opposed to that one provided anonymously?

Would a technique, like bet2give, has a better way to weight than would the poll (7oops7)? The former is a permutation on the idea that the market can be used as a measure.

Remarks:

01/20/2013 -- Changed link for bet2give.

09/02/2009 -- Let's face it, folks, undecidability needs to be discussed and adopted in any complex situational setting, especially if computers are involved. Only hubris pushes us to make loud exclamations about what we're going to do in the future.

01/27/2009 -- At the time of this post, engineering was the main focus. Then, other areas become of interest due to overlaps in the problems: map-territory, computation and being, and much more. There will be more integrating posts to bring some cohesion, such as leveraging and fiction.

10/18/2007 -- This post was timestamped early am. Later the same day, there was an announcement of a delay in the case of a particular program that is of interest. With the announcement was a disclaimer (Forward-Looking Information is Subject to Risk and Uncertainty) that is encouraging in that it recognizes the forward-looking problems.

Sometimes, one wonders if reporting wants to be based upon a static view that can be impossible to attain. It's even more difficult assessing how well risk was defined and managed.

Further discussion will pull together earlier posts dealing with earned-value and status checking.

Modified: 01/20/2013

Celebrating our frailties

In another context, while discussing Ben's largess to business (gamblers) but not to labor (or savers) - though, he claims his rolling out the dough is to create jobs, the notion of someone being perfect came about. Essentially, to err is human. The corollary is true, too: to be human is to err (even for those high-falutin' types that claim to be divine, et al).

To try to be perfect is not human; it's machinations in action. As in, someone doing something 'perfectly' does not mean that the person is perfect. No, that sort of thing is not much different from equating the map with the territory (a real problem nowadays, with ubiquitous computationally motivated intrusions in our lives).

So, does this mean that we cannot be better, etc. (or strive to be so?)? As in, practice makes perfect? No, as systems (and role playing - with effects, of course) are the things that we can have approach perfection. People, while in a system, can get better, to the extent to which they can overcome human limitations. As in, roles and essence are two different things.

But, do we expect that systems are perfect? Well, we do trust them a whole lot more than we ought to. See the comment on the main page about computablity, and problems thereof.

However, we can change the context to that dealing with expectations and realizations. As in, we can get close to fault-tolerant states, even if that comes about from error-fixup techniques that are, undoubtedly, clever.

---

Why do you think that the borg (to wit, Star Trek's type, et al) idea is so strong? People sense that we can have a symbiotic relationship (with what?) that is uplifting. But, too, we can descent into slavery (ah, financial indebtedness is just that).

---

The corollary thought is that 'labor' pertains to a class of people. Whereas, our progress rests upon us seeing that 'labor' relates to roles which are attempted (or fulfilled) by people. No matter that most who descend to this type of activity do so with little choice. Not all people who work with their hands are incapable of more advanced challenges. For some, it's a matter of choice.

Perhaps, that choice is seldom made nowadays. Not true, though, from my experience. One has to listen with the right ear to hear intelligence covered with the detritus from having mostly gross experiences from life. Some never get to shine themselves up. Yet, their potential is there.

---

As an aside, to the young mucks. The thing of having succeeding waves of people entering the market with the latest knowledge running things is part of our problem. Actually, a very large part. That sort of thing is a recent phenomenon, brought on by advances in technology and computation. So, its analysis can be done now since we have had several downturns over the recent times for people to recognize the problem, if it is expressed so as to be obvious (the stench goes all the way to heaven).

Expect some more attention to this theme; too, proposed ways to handle things better will be in the offering. Why not?

Remarks:

09/28/2012 -- One type of hope.

09/21/2012 -- This discussion ties into 7oops7's bailiwick (see Remarks 09/21/2012). We know that we cannot, too much, celebrate our faults. Why? Descent into the quagmire. Oh, wait! Being concerned with the faults of others has the same downward spiral. I have to admit that we need to find a way out of the mess (will it happen in the U.S. any time soon given how screwed up election dynamics have become (partly due to the Court's claiming the fiction that a corporation is a person and that its money is free speech?). Virtues come to mind as essential. Yet, many argue not. From whence, then, we have to ask them, come the motivators (lifters)? Hope is one of the virtues. We hope that we not get pulled into some type of downturn. We just went through one that was caused by those (see prior Remarks) who could run amok yet have not learned their lessons. Ben saw to that with his largess. Well, it's Friday; we'll get back to this later.

09/20/2012 -- It's imperative that I mention the best and brightest. Yes, we've talked of them before. Here is another definition. They might be considered as those whose arrogance causes them to see themselves as perfect. The real tragedy is that these types have always mucked up, and seem to continue to trash, the common world shared by all of us (now, and our progeny in the future). Too, those whose attributes are less stellar (by what is their ascendancy measured anyway? ..., very short term looks? ...) have to clean up after these type whose crap falls on the world from leaks in their diapers.

09/19/2012 -- Rick starts out: perfect memory.

09/19/2012 Let's say, for now, that perfection, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder (Wiki has a nice historical view of the concept's breadth of use). See, 09/19/2012 Remark (Fedaerated).

09/19/2012 -- Any sense of 'perfection' would require some way to judge whether something has attained the state, or just is such. All sorts of issues lurk about. So, let's look at the role aspect, for now. We'll get back to the need for 'ídeals' in this matter. That, too, raises considerations for us to look at. In terms of sensors and actions, one might think about adaptability as being an indicator. Yet. we all know about the pejoratives cast'd at the person who is good at playing the chameleon. Thinking of faults, are they not abundantly clear? Oh wait. Much effort goes to covering these up, not unlike our clothes hiding all sorts of imperfections (for the most). So, we're not far from the core issue of truth engineering. How do we know? Even if we can (are allowed to) see under the kimonos, do we know what exactly we're expected to see or even how to do other than react? One approach might be to look at what is considered perfect by category. And, then identify things that are almost perfect in that case, to wit ballplayer, surgeon, and much more. Some might even be 'perfect' in several roles. Others may have few such qualities. Ah, that is nudging up against an important subject, to be discussed later (per usual).

Modified: 09/28/2012

Zen of computing (in part)

This is a companion post to the Entitlement (Message to Google) post on 7oops7. We'll have more of these pairs.

---

Zen? Yes, several senses, but we're going back to the original motivation and come forward. 'enlightenment' will an operative concept; those who paid attention in school know that the western world went through a pseudo-phase (with this as the name), about the same time as westerners started to flood over to these parts (as in, across the big pond).

Aside: And, ..., the muck-quamire'd next few weeks are a direct result of wandering down perdition-laden'd paths, but that's another subject.

---

We have a message for Google, but there'll be some bit about Mr. Jobs. Plenty in China do not honor his name. You see, folks, all sorts of insights from the eastern minds came here and were bastardized. Yoga's downfall? One example. There are plenty. Mind you. The message is not that the eastern way is better, just different. And, we see that conflicts continue due to lack of understanding, especially on the part of the master races (???, kidding, of course) in the western way.

Which way of life, by the way, was saved from the eastern flood by those on the east side of Europe. Kudos to the Poles (yes), Slavs, Croats, and more. Ever thank (or even think of) those who kept the western civilization alive. Looks like we might try to kill it from within, if the newest generation doesn't move the forward-looking vector somewhat (how? why? -- ah, we'll get there).

---

Essentially, whatever superior state a computer can achieve, it cannot best the human's grasp. What? Note, we're not talking about the computer's ability to derive knotted states (hell, we were doing that long before our artificial friends arrived). We're talking wisdom. Who demonstrates that nowadays? Surely, we cannot look to the politicians. Nor, can we look to the money'd crowd chasing after their dreams of dominance.

---

The issue, though, is whether a human can have an elevated level, using the artificial, that is beyond that which is naturally attainable. We'll get into that, and more. An example would be joint exploration of some type of hyperspace (for the most part, this would only be a map --- please, see map-territory issues as being important to the discussion). In practice, any computer-assisted discipline (of which there are myriads, CAX, computational mathematics, visualization, and much more) is an example, including robotics (which is how we get to Google, in part).

---

The minds in power, notwithstanding, we need to up the ante in this regard (this old guy states the challenge, mostly, for the younger, and emerging, crowds). How? To be discussed. Why? It is necessary in order to pull ourselves away from the domination that some seem to desire. The human spirit is too strong to allow this emergence; yet, it's probably implicit in many sci fi views and reinforced in games built upon those views.

---

So, back to the subject. The 'idiot boxes' that pull peoples' minds into some zoned state in which they, then, ignore their reality into which they are embedded (and its inhabitants) and act in other than desirable manners (zombies are only one way to describe the effect) do so since those encumbered essentially gave up their control. Did they ever have any? Do we know how to teach self-control? Do we know what it is exactly that we're trying to teach (ah, is there a pill that will help?)? ..., So many questions abound.

That notion, that there is an attracting force behind the mindlessness, was the motivation for saying that FB is a metaphor (somewhat facetiously) for something that demands attention. There are many ways to approach the necessary analysis.

But, calling attention to Zen (whatever it is) and its mindfulness pursuit seemed to offer one starting point. We'll see how this goes. Another reason is the huge amount of psychic energy, and human liveliness, that has gone into that thing on which we can hang a three-lettered label.

---

That all leads to questions, such as this one: do computers contribute to, or detract from, mindfulness?

---

Of course, other questions are around, such as: why mindfulness?

Remarks:

10/05/2012 -- IJCAI has a newer flavor. It, at one time, had a theoretic thrust, mainly. Need to re-acquaint myself with the conference (attended 1987 Milan, Italy 1991 Sydney, Australia 1993 Chambery, France 1995 Montreal, Canada). This talk from IJCAI-2011 relates to the theme of these posts: Homo heuristicus. Note that the real Zen would include development. In other words, "God grows his own" (Steve would have known what that means)! Again, we need to re-look at heuristics.

10/05/2012 -- Pause, for a moment, to remember Steve and his contributions. In hindsight, Mr. Jobs' foresight looks pretty good (if only we could understand 'reality distortion' a little better -- and its effects).

10/04/2012 -- Learned a new one: gamify. Seems that the market-leaning folks have already adopted this, albeit with games that have real (and largely negative) impact upon the lives of us all.

10/04/2012 -- 1B users, give or take.

Modified: 10/05/2012

Entrapment

Entrapment? Yes, we're being overlaid with an insidious veil of supposed intelligence (singularities lurk). Earlier, we mentioned Eric Hoffer, as an example for us (outside the mania of consumerism, for one). Doug, the mouse guy and more, is another (was not like the current ones who are raking in billions daily for getting us further into perdition). We'll be adding to this list (Perelman, Patel, ..., lots of people).

---

We have people putting computer-based systems into processes without understanding how the two influence one another. Too, in some cases, they don't care as it pulls in the bucks (in the short term, then we have to bail them out). That's one big issue (push out the changes, make your user base adapt -- it's good for them).

Another is a map-territory problem (Google glass is only going to exacerbate the problem). You see, people get to believe that what's in the bits (such as, FB's trivia, etc.) is more real than the being itself. We'll have to go on at length about this type of mismatch. Being will (always does) win, folks, in the end.

---

We'll be seeing more of this type of thing; when will the populace wake up (suggesting that people with their feet on the ground and hands in the mud know more of this than high-flying execs of these grandiosely motivated organizations).

SSA error

AARP recently wrote of a 93-year-old, WWW II Vet who lost his Medicare coverage when someone in a SSA process updated his birthdate to an incorrect value. Then, they (SSA) had the audacity to tell him that their value was correct AND that he would have to use their value for his birth date correctly.

Naturally, the guy got irritated. As he, and his family, were working with the media (old type, not social - ah, much to say there, too) on a story about the idiocy, SSA discovered their error and apologized (as if that were enough).

Makes one think that we've forgotten GIGO as the "experts" talk about error-correcting processes, robust systems, and such (ah, entrapment, indeed).

---

All around, people have been making billions by spawning off half-systems (loaded with silly features - started early, yes Gates?) where errors, and losses, are the users' responsibility (has anyone actually quantified the bucks - trillions? - of accumulative losses from these half-witted types?). And, this witless (actually, it's a ploy to entrap) SOP has grown to proportions that are staggering.

Now, the solution going forward ought to be to have bucks devoted to 24/7 watch-dogging databases (say, watching the Equifaxes of the world) with the proviso that an error that can be certified by a human (even by phone) can be corrected (with appropriate notes and traces) quickly (with proper documentation, things can be looked at, and audited, at will - this is more than the financial folks can claim) and much more. There would be continual monitoring (many ways, not just NSA's little paranoia) by the people. Talk about jobs (yes, and this would be trainable -- look, please -- those who argue to bring in talent are looking for several things: no conscience, even less cultural attachment, reduced focus - some call this tunnel vision - so as to maximize pushing out crap, and more - yes, even though there are things like quality certification). There would be many, many jobs (see next for where the money would come from).

That is, all these billionaires are such because proper costs were not considered (near zero) in whatever the situation in which the bucks accumulated (yes, investors are problematic, to boot). In terms of cost, the populace bears the brunt in order for some to be luxuriously entertained (say, workers being screwed - too many ways to enumerate).

---

Take Equifax, for one. They could very well prevent the computational hell that is being imposed upon us. We'll get into that further, to boot.

Remarks:

07/30/2013 -- The future: economy and technology.

07/12/2013 -- Will wonders never cease? Jon knocks early-lookers?

07/12/2013 -- Comment on FB: Just read in the WSJ of a growing presence of a shadow "Supreme Court" (details to be discussed via blog). Think of it: police, judge, jury, executioner, mortician (and all the other roles) all rolled up unto one secretive group(s). Kings and feudal lords (slave owners) come to mind; but, do we have those nowadays? 

Then, we have shadow banking (its size is probably multiples of what gets caught under accounting's purview - Ben knows this). We have banks using hackers to stress their systems (what shadow activities can arise from that? - the Internet did not have to unfold like it did).

We have shadow government (supposedly handled by open-door policies). And, shadow business is cloaked under those leg-irons called non-disclosure agreements that are required for employment (makes working for oneself attractive, even if such causes one's life to border on poverty). The market addicts (those who go gaga (apologies to the Lady G) when Ben goes goo-goo) want their dark pools, and more.

Shadows are everywhere (no conspiracy paranoia intended, or unintended). USA Today talked about the shadow credit ratings (yes, the silly number that we get to see if not it, folks - that is, those who decide your fate look at their own little bit of stuff). The Big-3, and such ilk, need more scrutiny.

Well, shadows are real, to the extent of their natural properties. We have to deal with them. But, the rise of the computer (and its offspring - web, etc.) is raising the bar (for the bad guys - lowering it for we, the people) by changing the context of shadows (poorly understood at this time) in ways only hinted at by early concepts, such as undecidability.

Happy Friday thoughts.

07/11/2013 -- In a sense, Ben is trapped into the expectations of the addicts. Yes, there are several factors involved with this. Poor guy. Yet, for the rest of us, like the savers who are being tortured, we'll have to endure this idiocy for whatever time it takes. Yet, entrapment is making things worse day by day.

07/09/2013 -- How will we get the proper mind set to counter the web that binds? Is it trainable or existential (study dedicated to GEK III)? Some ask if the lack of accountability, or the observed absence of notions of responsibility, are major factors. Yes, there are aspects to this problem that come out of our humanness, worked over and over as generations pile up on life's shore. However, the larger problem is that the presumption behind many worldviews dealing with technology is that we understand more than we actually do. That latter overlaps partly with the concepts behind quasi-empiricism. ... Money, as truth, muddies the water, to boot.

Modified: 07/30/2013

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

Truth in Time

We can look at several ways that truth and time might relate. Can either be a component of the other? Or, can truth be timely? What are the truths (things) that persist through time?

We can ask, in the truth (small t) sense, does time subsume truth? We know from the experience that truth may very well be limited by location and period. In the Truth (large T) sense, time may become problematic as we have seen with modern physics, or, as some views argue, Truth may very well subsume time.

In an operational sense, a decision would hopefully obtain benefit from truth engineering in a timely manner even though the process may very well need to handle the undecidable. Truth in Time may, as well, necessitate a temporal, or perhaps even a non-monotonic, approach.

In the sense of Tribe as Truth, time plays a role which has a different flavor for science than for business; this is easily seen, as an example, in terms of expected horizon; business has a notable short-sighted viewpoint, for the most part.

Also, for science, a discipline, as a group in the context of reductionism, has an assumption set that contains entries from other disciplines (or groups) for which there will be a time element. In this regard, is newer information more trustworthy than something older?

On the other hand, business does not have the clarity of science, not necessarily from disinformation as the simple act of reducing a time profile while generalizing context can introduce fuzziness.

Remarks:

05/09/2013 -- Eric Hoffer, longshoreman philosopher and autodidact, and his views apply here. 

05/28/2011 -- Later concepts: Turing space, map/territory, and avatars.

09/02/2009 -- The Vienna School says that undecidability heavily influences their take on economic views. That Quants run off after money basically ignores these issues.

01/27/2009 -- 'Earned Value' relates to time.

Modified: 05/09/2013

Status, 2026 start

This blog represents my work in Truth Engineering over the years. As such, it provides a history of the thought process over that timeframe and also a collection of material that relates to the these. 

This post brings together links to the disparate depositories that have been used over the years for this project. For each item, there is a little explanation about the contents. 

To begin, though, we have a list of articles from the past three years, mostly related to the emergence of GenAI/LLM which has been a central theme for three years now. 

Note: An example of a principal focus with respect to research and analysis: Portal to truth. And, a prime interest is "Bespoke software" and blogging about such. 

Overviews and summaries: 

• Summary of writings - updated in April of 2025, this PDF gives some overview of the Writings that I have done since retirement. To be updated in 2026. 
• Linkedin - articles and posts related to truth engineering and kbe within the modern contexts that we find ourselves adrift due to the map/territory issues of AI/ML confounding and conflating things. 
• AJSwtlk.com - this was our first start using the web for truth engineering work. The first entry in the "What's New" was in Sept of 2010. 
• Papers - this repository deals with my work at the Knowledge Systems Center of Sperry Univac. My later work was a Boeing in the area of KBE (knowledge-based) engineering where the notions for truth engineering arose due to describable events. At the same time of that KBE work, there were projects elsewhere to which I can refer, such as one that was done at Wright-Patterson Air Force base in Ohio and has been described in a non-declassified document. As well, there links to articles at Linkedin. See above link. 
• Quora/Psychether - psychether goes with truth engineering as does knowledge-based engineering. The former is the overarching set of notions; the latter is an example and demonstration of things related to truth engineering but computerized for proper analysis and judgmental decisions. 
• ...

Blogs and associated material:

Note: These blogs are a data repository for a longitudinal of the U.S. with regard to technology, business, science, and  general knowledge-related disciplines that come into play in coping with the modern world.

• TruthEng - for truth engineering, a background does exist. Plus, there are papers on current matters and how they relate. 
• This blog - first post, 24 Jul 2007. 
• 7'oops7 - first post that we did was 31 Aug 2007. This blog was motivated by 8 July 2007, or 7/8/07, or, ... The early posts had a particular theme, but the topic got to be more general as the 787 came to fruition. 
• Fedaerated - started in Aug of 2009 for the explicit purpose to focus on the world of busyness and its gaming in areas such as financial engineering which has no science as a basis thereby somewhat is a misnomer. 
• TGSoc Tech - since May 2014, the posts are about the theme that relates content and configuration which then brings in issues of an observer's view and the judgmental differences that pertain to such. Not unlike our concerns for relativity and the age of uncertainty that comes from advancements in computational systems. 
• ...

Remarks: Modified: 01/11/2026

01/10/2026 --  Tied in TruthEng (WordPress) and Quora. 

Leveraging anew

With a new year looming and with a coming change to the political and economic landscapes, the tone of the blog will need to adapt. All things are not by nature fraudulent (made-off shows the need for due diligence, but some people are trustworthy - yes, Boy Scouts, for one). Too, some know how to handle the map/territory problem.

So, let's start with leveraging (and its associated fiction). Earlier posts seem like diatribes in some cases, as they were not complete. As an aside, that is one drawback of the blogging paradigm; as, even with extensive linking, coherence is not as readily attained as it can be in sequential text.

Leveraging is not bad, in itself. After all, we have used the lever since Archimedes explained the principle and use. But, financial types went overboard with leveraging many times, including in the great market drop of 1929. Laws were put into place to limit using debt for things that were highly risky. These laws seem to have been forgotten, of late, as fairy dusting allowed magical returns to become realistically expected. Then, we had a mess; made-offing was the most recent example.

Friedman, in a recent article, noted that we need an ethical as well as a financial bailout. He used "I'll be gone" to describe a syndrome related to leveraging. In short, we had people thinking that someone else would have to clean up their mess. Why care about it when the perpetrator was long gone? (Yes, CEOs as diaper messers (we've said it before)). Friedman said that Madoff was the "cherry" on this cake of ours.

By the way, the article notes that we were not walking our talk. We were trying to shovel the 'casino' of capitalism under the rug while telling everyone else that we're the best.

One could probably argue that leveraging went awry due to misunderstandings. A common theme here is that computational and mathematical ideas have been interloped and used to screw things up. Take what we learned from the Modigliani-Miller theorem in which a type of equivalence is shown between debt and equity (to put it loosely). Gosh, folks, just look at the list of assumptions. A whole bunch of economists have built careers just looking at implications of this list.

One that we'll quibble about is the efficient market bit of fairy dust. Too, MM deals with a firm, yet who is usually a large holder of equity. The public, consumers all!! Yet, we counsel them to not indebted themselves in order to play the market (or used to, as a lesson from the Great Depression).

In short, there are intrinsic differences twixt equity and debt that MM does not eliminate. The discussion here would ask how anything wrong for those behind the firm could not hold in the collective. You see, look at the tranche mess (where crap was gathered, sliced/diced, then rated to not smell).

Okay, now, to look at an example of leveraging financially, consider the mortgage. Some of the older folks like to pay cash, for whatever reason, for their houses. Or, we saw movement of monies this way from sales in high-valued (using the term advisedly) area to a buy in a low-valued area (think CA to AZ, if you would). But, let's consider a normal situation.

If you want to buy a house with some form of down payment and then make periodic payments, that loan is a type of leverage. You will have some equity, with a lien, of course, and enjoy current benefits based upon future payment. One assumes that the future payment requirements will be met. Also, various risks are handled with things like home-owners insurance. All in all, this model has worked well for millions over the years. One could think of several examples like this. Perhaps, an enumeration of these would be a good thing to do here.

But, there are many things that went wrong. Such as, allowing leverages to be built (almost ad nauseum) upon leverages which is very suspect, just by definition. As well, some were put into mortgages without having the means to pay. We'll look at all of these at some point.

Remarks:

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

11/22/2010 -- Tranching, under the guise of securitization? Silly games.

11/02/2010 -- Two years later, the message is the same, except some changes have occurred. Of real note is that the jobless rate is high; out-housing really set up for that. Also, we need to re-look at that learned from the 'vons' guys, Ludwig and Friedrich. See Near Zero.

03/03/2010 -- Applies to the debate about MM and equity/debt.

10/14/2009 -- Knowledge can, and ought to, be leveraged.

08/18/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.

07/23/2009 -- After the bust and the rebound, toxic assets are still a problem due to tranche realities.

Modified: 04/03/2011

Extrapolation, calibration, truth

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

--

Some comments (in earlier posts) were motivated by recent events in regard to our growing use of techniques based upon abstractions thanks to the ubiquity of computers and web servers.

One particular set of events dealt with frothing resulting from tranche-ing, as it's so easy to see this bubbly phenomenon in the financial areas that get divorced from proper evaluation methods (where is the science behind the grand intellectualisms?); but, one might think the problem exists too in the hard area of program management, where expectations and time are seemingly inversely related (one classic example is software engineering - at least, a plane can finally get to the air or not). Aside: remember that both expectations and time are heavily subjective despite all the apparatuses devoted to controlling the latter.

But, to be fair, during the whole of the 20th century, our observational selves have pushed out touch and measure far from our bodies and its senses. By the end of last century, there was very little that was not computationally supported. Did anyone in 1990 use slide rulers [sic] like those in 1960 (see Remarks), for instance? Metrology became a focal (pun) science. There is some type of artificial assist found in about any modern situation.

Even many metal workers, in 1990, sat back (figuratively speaking) and watched a machine work. Even though the semantics of the controlling devices were seemingly simple, the mathematics was not. Who would have thought that lowly geometry would now be the major subject that it has become with all the variants that have spawned (essentially topological movements)?

This subject will take a lot more attention. But, to limit the view for the moment, we could bring up the issues related to modeling such as we will see with simulation, virtual worlds, mixed-media situations (in terms of robotics), and the like. This is not a static set of things.

Any purely virtual event would not (does not, ..., remember the importance of handling quasi-empiricism) map well to anything corresponding to the world. Just look at the differences in geometry handling between the visually-based gaming world and the metrology-based world of CAx. There are situations where servos (which are and are driven by computational events) work very well (like stopping your car reliably). There are so many other examples as these types of things abound, again, as a non-static set.

The augmented reality work makes one think that real-world events and the computational are going to be more closely tied as an inevitable part of progress. The questions remain, though, about quasi-empirical issues and trust (the domain of truth engineering).

One thing to look at will be how we 'calibrate' between the world and the computer model, knowing full well that measurement itself will be model (and, for the most part, computationally) based. You see, even with a good calibration between the world and the computer, there will be computational steps that fill in (interpolate) or expand (extrapolate) thereby adding potential error due to several factors that we'll look at.

Remarks:

01/05/2015 -- Tru'eng, anew. This post is the most popular, of late, which raises some interesting questions. Eight years, ago? That was even before the Made-off revelations.

04/19/2011 -- We have to get back to the basics.

01/01/2011 -- We have four last posts of December under our belt.

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

08/20/2009 -- We'll switch blogs to look at technical economic issues.

12/18/2008 -- Well, things really fell apart in the 3rd Quarter of 2008. Of course, the tranche was only one factor. Others include the players and the games. Now, games include using mathematics erroneously, as in getting an aura from the use of derivatives (to be discussed further). We'll have to re-address the map/territory issue.

01/18/2008 -- Of course, 'slide rule' was meant and would have been appropriate with some changes to the phrasing.

'slide rulers' was a Jungian contraction (not dissimilar to the Freudian slip) where an event in the non-parallel (non-linear) collective unconsciousness collapsed out a concept into a little tidbit.

The topic was how the 20th century culminated in a whole slew of artificial media interposing themselves between us and reality (many of these measuring - rulers, so to speak). Of course, at the same time, the 20th-century thinkers pushed forth on us the idea that we cannot know reality anyway in the sense of having a dog's nose.

As well, it was not only sensing that was entrapped with our devices, thinking has been profoundly affected by the ubiquity of the computational (hence, truth engineering's necessity - we'll be looking at sufficiency issues as we go along) leading to several classes.

• Simple user - not essentially ignorant, as anyone who used mathematics founded on computation runs into issues that are largely unresolved - some statisticians are prime examples.

• Wizard - having access to the internals sufficient to effect behavior controls, seemingly doing so by magic, in many cases.

• Magician - above the Wizard as a grasper of underlying theory and of the larger issues, yet subject to the same human failings.

• Innocents - who can go around and not have to worry about this stuff.

So, who now uses a slide rule (not for measuring, but for calculating) which was ubiquitous in certain circles in 1960? Who can take any of our devices and from first principles recreate an analog? A friend of mine jokes that modern EEs are stock keepers (obtaining off the shelf circuity - not generating from scratch) rather than creative designers.

Of course, there are arguments for not re-inventing the wheel, as we seem to do perpetually.

Modified: 01/05/2015

Justice and truth

There is a lot to say about justice. Looking at the world of work and busy'ness allows a view that would be funny if it were not for all the pain that goes along with the territory. So much interest is paid to the 'pirates' and worse.

Any attempt at discussing the issues more fairly is characterized by barbs of various 'isms' being thrown that are feared by many.

We can split the populace in the busy'ness (which, by the way, is a Constitutional right for those of the USA) into various dichotomies, such as doers and lookers (same as watchers, can't-do, and so forth), or, if you would, workers and managers.

Let's look at a little table.


'lookers' is used as a general term somewhat pejoratively for a whole class, say some managers (actually executives - as that level drives the process [worldview] in this sense), yet there are many managers who fill in this necessary role honorably. Our problem is how to define the game, roles, and rewards, hopefully, with more wise motivations; essential fairness is not anti-thematic to progress and advancement generally.

One effect is that many times the doers are chewed up, given the apparent endless supply, especially as we might think in the globalization scheme. Fairness would depict some level of continued support for doers as their usefulness diminishes through time due to their sacrifice on the altar of work.

Remarks:

06/05/2012 -- We have the cause wrong? Piracy, by another name.

05/09/2011 -- Doers, reconsidered.

01/27/2009 -- Now a new day and way to consider these matters.

08/27/2008 -- This theme applies still, as each of the little posts is supposed to, as a collective for a coherent viewpoint.

06/18/2008 -- That we see glimmers of an unhealthy economy (who has identified what is a good one that everyone agrees with?), such as that harped about in this post, might point to using lessons learned from medicine in our analysis.

Modified: 06/05/2012

Unplanned house?

What was that about the monkeys (thousands, millons)? They could write a book? Of course, I could have google'd the answer; the point is that "monkey" appears in a whole lot of memes.

Now, we are talking "truth" in all of its possible aspects; in computing, we deal with whether things are done as they ought (as in, expected to or specified so as to). The whole of tru'eng deals with these issues, some of which are not of practical interest, at the moment (but will be, in time). Besides, the issues of computability, we have things like goodness of systems (methods to predict (insure) such) or their soundiness.

A key issue is addressed by Leslie Lamport: Who Builds a House without Drawing Blueprints? (ACM, Comm, Vol. 48, No. 4). Leslie describes some of the motivations for his work, namely TLA - Temporal Logic of actions. It is not that doing systems is strictly like construction, after all, we do not see flow charts being used nowadays. However, nothing good comes about, except by extreme luck, from lack of planning. Agile methods (more below) seem to be like that; from where I sit, the users are expected to adapt with whatever the developers come up with, especially in the freebie systems that are so prevalent nowadays.

But, trust your life on some of this software? Earlier, we pointed to some discussion of the bazaar / cathedral theme (yes, juxtaposed, for obvious reasons). Test/code/review does not allow one to lift (to be discussed).

Now, about TLA, in the same issue of the Communications of the ACM, Amazon allowed their workers to present some comments on its use.

---

Aside: I fell out of my chair; for many reasons, one of which is that I have not dealt (by purpose) with the company ever (except from 10 yards away). So, I'm impressed and will look more closely at this. ... In actuality, the company has done very well in handling technical problems (I just hope that the owner doesn't diddle with the Washington's Post editoral nature - too much) that are not simple. They, like others, are facing problems daily for which there is no known solution (except that we can do types of approximations, adequately enough, so as to be practical - stacking up what karma that will bite us later? - that is, many (of the hapless) get pulled into the troubles without their knowledge and against their wishes - to wit, the idiocy of 2008 til now for which we are still paying and have a ways to go yet - world-class moron-hood, Jamie, et al). Now, I need to look at AWS for another project.

---

TLA has some add-ons, one of which is mentioned in the Amazon article (actually, other companies are mentioned - including Oracle): PlusCal.

Oh yes, the article: How Amazon Web Services Uses Formal Methods. There were several authors. But, this quote needs attention: A precise, testable description of a system becomes a what-if tool for designs, analogous to how spreadsheets are a what-if tool for financial models.

Of course, there is this, too: Formal methods deal with models of systems, not the systems themselves, so the adage "All models are wrong, some are useful" applies. As in, using our terms: territory-map.

One author, Marc Brooker, has blogged about his experiences (post on TLA+). Notice that the domain is fairly particular. As one travels out the abstraction chain, things get further from the machine (even if everything has to still funnel through the execution stream) into realms of creativity.

Which, then, brings up one issue. The more formal (too, the real sciences bigots who bewail that humans are so unpredictable - wake up, folks) like to think that they can compress being (whatever it is and however we might know it) into a box (actually, enmeshing our glorious selves in a trap that is onerous to the extreme) and, thereby, get risk (and all related ilk) under its thumb (hah). In actuality, we can (not the cathedral, by necessity, but with a bazaar with some bit of decorum) find our ways through to a safe and healthful experience (virtual and otherwise).

Remarks:   Modified: 05/14/2015

05/14/2015 -- If you cannot read the ACM articles, please send a note. I can pull out public links from the references which would be equivalent in concept and close in content.

05/14/2015 -- And so, after the post and content has been digested (does not imply absence of forethought), then epilog bits come to fore. The first half of that letter is what resonates. Then, Ben&Steve talking "incredible returns" in the stock market grates (harshly). For one, the thing, as run now, is a ca-pital-sino and very much can be characterized by near-zero (both terms have links in the text). Too, though, is the whole thing of the magical multiplier (wild expansion of value), of returns mainly for the early birds (connivers), and of enormous grabs (by some) that desires serious analysis (again, foreclosure - not in any way now profiting, nor in the past profited, from the gaming - whose main thing is to impoverish the masses). ... There will be a change in tone, thanks to Canfield (yes, he of the chicken soup thing). --- So, the diatribe series will stand as an example: so-called constructive looks, No. 1, No. 2, No. 3.

Truth and its engines

Lots of themes are pending. In the financial world, the U.S. FED just pulled out all stops and placed us in unknown territory that's even more remote than where Ben/Janet left us. Lots to learn there; but, will we? With respect to the computer's impact, we see some hype as DL masquerades as the new AI. It might be comical to see how this plays out. 

As, we have truth engineering further advanced than before. Too, we know that we do not have to descend to hardware given that it's still von Neumann'ish in nature. No, we can just use this present configuration and think to the future. As well, though, we do have to get technical in how mathematics evolved to where it is today as an enabler of the mischief. 

Well, Wigner was only given minimal attention with respect to the issue of the 'unreasonable' manner that things are in the relationship twixt mathematics and physics. Yes, was on that theme from the beginning; the change will be to actually be more specific with regard to modes and influences from such. 

So, for now, a punt, as if it were the fourth down. 

Remarks: Modified: 12/29/2020

12/29/2020 --

Truth, Things in Themselves

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:

05/28/2011 -- Later concepts: Turing space, map/territory, and avatars.

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

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