Knowns and unknowns

Those things mentioned first are a growing set both for us, as individuals, and for the species as a whole. All around us are the results of our prowess at handling knowns.

However, those same examples that abound of our creativeness and abilities come from smart handling of unknowns. Some may call this decision making under uncertainty. All sorts of progress was enabled by advances in mathematics, science, engineering, and, of the latter times, computation. One key discipline related to this is risk management.

Too, earned value still is problematic for any large program.

And, it's not unkind at this point to note that the recent economic mess is due to failings of smarties involved with risk management. Supposedly, several of their financial instruments (some of which Buffett called weapons of mass destruction - that was in 2003, yet, he did dabble - still is dabbling, some wonder why) were not as risk free as touted; the consequences thereof were abounding as they grew across the set of the hapless; and, those who perpetrated the fraudulent thinking are still free and getting bonuses.

As an aside, this blogger is not against derivatives. How can the concept, that arose out of calculus and as usurped by the financiers for their shenanigans be bad? Consider, though, a hierarchy based upon Minsky - hedge, speculate, then ponzi (or should I say Madoff?) as apropos to these instruments and the underlying regulation that is now being bantered about.

Anyway, where were we? Despite the growing set of knowns, any who have a thoughtful nature may know that the unknowns didn't diminish as the knowns grew. Of course, thinking along those lines may require some acceptance of the hierarchies that emerged out of Cantor's work, yet, we can also say that the remark attributed to Newton could be used, to boot. It had to do with finding pebbles on a beach (small set of pebbles found so far, as opposed to an endless beach, so to speak). But, the pig after the honey of moolah would most likely trample such insights into the sty's mud.

So, this issue is very important to the subject of this blog and, therefore, will recur. Of note will be a focus on how a phase, of a test program, that is just starting will unfold.

Remarks:

08/04/2012  -- Over five years, we had a lot of side trips. We'll try to focus more. BTW, Rumsfeld has recently had his say.

05/27/2009 -- That we have topsy-turvy needs to be addressed more fully in both an epistemologic and an operational sense.

Modified: 08/04/2012

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

Node it all

For now, see some motivation (FEDaerated).

We will start to lay out the problems and our means for handling. In general, we can think of what we know and do not know. Let's use a simple chart.

Know what we know - this is the basis of success and goodness
    Do not know what we [think that we] know -- all sorts of variations
             (operational idiocy, for one)

Know (as in, think that we know) what we do not know - again, lots to discuss
             (fools rush in)
     Do not know (cannot know?) what we do not know - basically,
             the infamous unknown-unknowns
             (see 7oops7; to the wise, the largest set - listen up, cosmologists)

All sorts of modern workarounds exist, with statistical reasoning being the most insidious (many times). Think compactification (other analogs can be used) as one culprit (when applied without due concern for ramifications).

We will start from scratch. Charles Sanders Peirce, for one, will figure.

Remarks:  Modified: 07/24/2015

07/24/2015 --

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

Have you heard?

Or, here's something to think about during the busy holiday travel season. I first saw the youtube link in a comment by Sven (off topic, but of merit) to a flightblogger post.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaWdEtANi-0 from Al Jazeera.

Why is this under truth engineering? Well, after listening to the video, taking a moment to gulp about the possibilities, then starting to assimilate the information, and beginning to phrase questions about the video and its contents, what is a better example to use for trying to cast illumination on 'truth engineering' and its usefulness?

So, leaving any conclusions until after some analysis, here are a few questions. Mainly, for now, we'll look at what can be known, is thought to be known, and what might not be known (avoiding Scott C's unknown unknowns).

• -- Firstly, the players are many. We have ex-employees in the video. We have experts, too, such as FAA personnel. We have lawyers. But, too, we have a major player in the military-industrial complex (see Ike's concerns, raised, of late, due to some of his early speech drafts being recently discovered in cabin). On the other side is Al Jazeera which may give some pause. But, People & Power is a nice concept, as opposed to the big stompers (even red-staters ought to understand this).
• -- For each of the players, there will be further categorization that is possible which would allow some insight, hopefully, to motivation and such. Yet, as shown by the plane graveyard scene, all we have is verbal testimony unless some type of physical evidence (obtained at what cost?) is found. So, from a truth engineering framework, we can look at the interminable fluxes in ungrounded spaces versus the underdetermined states in the physical (one impetus for cyber-physical studies).
• -- So, how do we de-construct this thing to find the truth? Well, it will be a multi-dimensional task that will take time and ought to continue to intrigue as time unfolds the details. Thankfully, that the sources are on-line will help. Yet, what type of grunt, ground work might be necessary? As in, does not finding the truth go beyond the cyber and virtual (rhetorical, to some)?
• -- How does this play into the themes of oops (how do we know?) and business (who tells the truth?)? We'll look at that, too.

We might also use this opportunity to discuss more about computer modeling and what it might mean for ourselves and how we process truth. That an airplane requires so much thought, in design, manufacture, and operation, makes it a perfect vehicle for this type of discussion. Too, do we not have some intuitive grasp of flying (natively)?

Remarks:

04/07/2012 -- Flightblogger ends, as least, Jon's watch. Some issues raised five years ago are still apropos. The context may have changed a little, yet, perhaps now is time to re-address the themes.

12/20/2010 -- Not only do we need to ask who tells the truth, we need consider what 'truth' might be. A recent New Yorker article is of essence: The truth wears off. The few sentences of the article says this: "Just because an idea is true doesn't mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn't mean that it's true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe". I might add, whom to believe. A similar article appeared earlier in The Atlantic.

12/18/2010 -- On the finance side, Martin Weiss reminds us that Big Ben has grown the money supply by 1.2T the past couple of years. Then, he lowered the cost (interest) while giving bunches of money to the banks. These guys then loaned the money to us at a high rate of interest. And, pulled in the bucks. Of course, Ben had taken 1T of toxic assets off of their hand and put it on our backs. Finally, those jerks are getting paid big bonuses this year. We should have nationalized, yes, indeed.

Modified: 04/07/2012

May and Must

We can use these two concepts to discuss the basis for truth engineering and to look at oops related to improper handling.

We use 'must' in the sense of knowing that something is true or false. There is a larger set of unknowns, as in 'may' be true or false. We know that 'may' is much larger than 'must' (ignoring big 'T' issues, for now, and allowing some hierarchy of unbounded sets) just from our experiences.

These sets, must and may, can be subsumed by overlaying with reals, that is we can take 1.0 as true and 0.0 as false. We, then, have that large collection in between.

Of course, this concept applies in a computational context. Not many run around with a world view based upon the reals. Not without some gizmo for handling the numbers. What we see in the modern world is that computation, and abstraction, are overlaying reality.

Such is progress, but we need to get this right, folks.

As we have already mentioned, various issues come to fore with the modern way of doing things, such as map-territory misconstruing and much more. We need to change our ways, somewhat, and do more than just stress critical thinking.

You see, no amount of critical thinking will offset undecidability and the overly complex nature of the world. Now, creativity does help.

For some, there is fear that comes from not knowing. What manager (politician) wants to talk in terms of 'may' when the audience (like the vultures of capitalism) want to hear certainty.

Granted, the problems that will be looked at are related to logic, computing, and applications thereof. That is, the modern mind and its models are the core issue. Some people seem to be beyond the types of limitations that need to be discussed, yet whether they are, or not, is itself an open-ended issue (big T).

Sure, we like to see the confident. Success in the world does point to some type of knowing. That the gaming (chimera) has adapted itself to optimize types of insights (that is, insider views, arbitrage positions that are 'must' (and ought to be a public good/debt) yet have been privatized, and more -- we can enumerate these).

So, what's the issue here? Well, an ACM paper (Intro, Article) discusses static analysis of a program and suggests means to do so successfully. The basic problem is NP-complete so cleverness is in order. Yet, the creative moves have their costs and undesirable effects.

In essence, it's not impossible to do this type of proof, just very hard. And, when done, the results are conditioned upon several things.

That ought to give us pause about planning for the future and for doing large projects. Let's take the discussion over to the FEDaerated context.

Remarks:

09/27/2010 -- Capitalism is for the good of us, let's bring that forward.

Modified: 09/27/2010