It's probably nice that a whole generation has become proficient with running a computer, albeit that for many it's game related. But, then, too, we have the game creators.
So, that whole thing shows how virtual worlds can (and will) be incorporated into our world for the benefit of the many, albeit that there are several negative energies that can come about, to boot.
So, a project announcing a recent delay brings up themes that have appeared here repeatedly over the last couple of years. Yes, out on a limb with the limb cracking.
You see, that whole thing of PDM has taken on a life of its own. CAE cannot take the place of the world except in localized (related to decisional spaces) areas and in well-understood domains. Composites are not that well known yet.
But, too, PDM covers CAD and all sorts of activities related to scheduling and control. Oh, yes, the computer as the driver. Well, again, these things are too immature (and the argument can be made that they will always be so, despite those who argue for strong AI) to lead the way.
We need people in the loop, yes, people as in breathing things of flesh.
Expect this discussion to continue.
Remarks:
05/27/2012 -- This post has been read lately, prompting an undated comment.
09/09/09 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework.
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.
08/20/2009 -- Of course, there are financial counterparts of interest here.
Modified: 07/27/2012
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Saturday, June 20, 2009
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:
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
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
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Fresh look
Supposing one woke up from a sleep of 30 years (think Rip Van Winkle) or one spent the past 30 in a cloistered environment (think Thomas Merton) and, at the same time, figure that the view before that lapse was fairly aware. The lapse's start would have been before shenanigans that precipitated the recent troubles, somewhat. Could we learn something by looking with this type of view? Would what was learned be of interest?
Why 30 years? Well, it sort of coincides with the post-hippie time. That is, some of the social dynamics that can be associated with the 1960s had run their course. Others were just beginning such as silly business. Too, it is close to 25 years (since Orwell's year of interest); he who worried about what we might call class acts.
Well, as the basics can show, after we collect a few more - never to be complete (and, the major theme here continues to be truth and its engines), we have people in a world which is always moving forward, with things changing, some people gaining (a small set doing so enormously), many losing, the mature trying to establish better means and methods, and some merely playing, all this under that old sun which has observed the gamings of humans for what seems like eternity.
So, we wake up and what do we see. Well, a very rich man, who just a few years ago, said that derivatives (financial, of course) were WMD (look up Iraq circa 2002) and is now dabbling. What gives there? Too, we see daily bombardment via TV and the Internet of information that is related to what is supposedly capitalistic in nature (but is casino-like).
Yes, we see there some millions of bucks oriented toward keeping the game afloat. Mind you, the aforementioned bard (rich guy) got his using rules and methods established in the early 1900s (we're now in the early 2000s). Now, has he left his quibbles behind? Or, is it that he has too much money and just wants to play around?
We see people driving down the street with their minds elsewhere. What? Yes, hurling through space (well, a little more constrained than flight) blindly. Doing things like texting (or venturing into tweet-ville - more later). As if where their minds are is better than where they are. Ah, interesting. But, didn't they see that on Haight-Ashbury? And, so, too, these zombies make themselves and others suffer.
Much like business, too, folks. Another type of zombies running after not much. Well, riches. Ah, yes, the best-and-brightest of us all.
Too, we see all sorts of analysis oriented to wondering what went wrong over the past 30 years some of it containing a bad guy list that looked for culprits. That list does not include one important viewpoint, though, namely Milken. No, any influence that he may have had on the immediate issue would be from the more remote times (pre-1990, let's say); yet, a lot of the acceptance of the gaming can be taken back to Mike's work.
Ah, yes, finance does need some scrutiny from a fresh set of eyes. Fortunately, the basics will allow such to come forth. No hurry, folks, as we cannot be complete, but we can be thorough.
Remarks:
03/17/2015 -- Still appropriate.
01/15/2015 -- At last, a series that will establish the basis and extensions, as required. We are going to go back to some simple and come forward to the modern, complicated economy. Why? My long chain of ancestors (inherited via Prof. Lucio Arteaga) is one motivation.
06/08/2014 -- Does time tell?
09/19/2013 -- To some, evidently, grabbing oodles of money, without due consideration of ramifications to others or to the common weal, is the smartest thing; but, we do know that virtue is smart, to boot. Even the secularists are trying hard to show how their worldview can lead to right living (as in, they do not need God to have a conscience). And, what virtue might be prime important to this discussion? Prudence (see Remarks, this day).
06/25/2012 -- Washington Post on Congressional non-ethics. The idiocy goes all the way to the top, it seems.
12/05/2011 -- It's interesting how idiotic the supposedly smart can be. The real issue: the failings of an idiot have a small influence; the failings of the 'real idiots' has wide impact (and, in so many ways). Somehow, we muddle through.
11/09/2011 -- It's good to see states making it illegal to text and drive. It ought to be that commonsense says to not. Many who do this with no problem are pushing their luck; unfortunately, when the texter's luck runs out, others get hurt. I79 in West Virginia is the utmost anti-text road; there are no flat spots or straight sections for 160+ miles; it's all up and down and curvy at 70 mph.
10/22/2010 -- We need more like Perelman in order to have a fair economy.
Why 30 years? Well, it sort of coincides with the post-hippie time. That is, some of the social dynamics that can be associated with the 1960s had run their course. Others were just beginning such as silly business. Too, it is close to 25 years (since Orwell's year of interest); he who worried about what we might call class acts.
Well, as the basics can show, after we collect a few more - never to be complete (and, the major theme here continues to be truth and its engines), we have people in a world which is always moving forward, with things changing, some people gaining (a small set doing so enormously), many losing, the mature trying to establish better means and methods, and some merely playing, all this under that old sun which has observed the gamings of humans for what seems like eternity.
So, we wake up and what do we see. Well, a very rich man, who just a few years ago, said that derivatives (financial, of course) were WMD (look up Iraq circa 2002) and is now dabbling. What gives there? Too, we see daily bombardment via TV and the Internet of information that is related to what is supposedly capitalistic in nature (but is casino-like).
Yes, we see there some millions of bucks oriented toward keeping the game afloat. Mind you, the aforementioned bard (rich guy) got his using rules and methods established in the early 1900s (we're now in the early 2000s). Now, has he left his quibbles behind? Or, is it that he has too much money and just wants to play around?
We see people driving down the street with their minds elsewhere. What? Yes, hurling through space (well, a little more constrained than flight) blindly. Doing things like texting (or venturing into tweet-ville - more later). As if where their minds are is better than where they are. Ah, interesting. But, didn't they see that on Haight-Ashbury? And, so, too, these zombies make themselves and others suffer.
Much like business, too, folks. Another type of zombies running after not much. Well, riches. Ah, yes, the best-and-brightest of us all.
Too, we see all sorts of analysis oriented to wondering what went wrong over the past 30 years some of it containing a bad guy list that looked for culprits. That list does not include one important viewpoint, though, namely Milken. No, any influence that he may have had on the immediate issue would be from the more remote times (pre-1990, let's say); yet, a lot of the acceptance of the gaming can be taken back to Mike's work.
Ah, yes, finance does need some scrutiny from a fresh set of eyes. Fortunately, the basics will allow such to come forth. No hurry, folks, as we cannot be complete, but we can be thorough.
Remarks:
03/17/2015 -- Still appropriate.
01/15/2015 -- At last, a series that will establish the basis and extensions, as required. We are going to go back to some simple and come forward to the modern, complicated economy. Why? My long chain of ancestors (inherited via Prof. Lucio Arteaga) is one motivation.
06/08/2014 -- Does time tell?
09/19/2013 -- To some, evidently, grabbing oodles of money, without due consideration of ramifications to others or to the common weal, is the smartest thing; but, we do know that virtue is smart, to boot. Even the secularists are trying hard to show how their worldview can lead to right living (as in, they do not need God to have a conscience). And, what virtue might be prime important to this discussion? Prudence (see Remarks, this day).
06/25/2012 -- Washington Post on Congressional non-ethics. The idiocy goes all the way to the top, it seems.
12/05/2011 -- It's interesting how idiotic the supposedly smart can be. The real issue: the failings of an idiot have a small influence; the failings of the 'real idiots' has wide impact (and, in so many ways). Somehow, we muddle through.
11/09/2011 -- It's good to see states making it illegal to text and drive. It ought to be that commonsense says to not. Many who do this with no problem are pushing their luck; unfortunately, when the texter's luck runs out, others get hurt. I79 in West Virginia is the utmost anti-text road; there are no flat spots or straight sections for 160+ miles; it's all up and down and curvy at 70 mph.
04/30/2011 -- The naive view that is described here might be the basis for a re-look at what the idiots have wrought. The rich guy? Of, course Warren. The idiots? Too many to enumerate, unfortunately.
10/22/2010 -- We need more like Perelman in order to have a fair economy.
01/26/2010 -- What? We've learned nothing from the mess, as the casino cascades continually.
11/08/2009 -- The gigantic chimera needs proper attention.
08/17/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.
06/20/2009 -- Yes, rent can go to labor (new look at capitalism), and finance can have a higher calling.
Modified: 03/17/2015
11/08/2009 -- The gigantic chimera needs proper attention.
08/17/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.
06/20/2009 -- Yes, rent can go to labor (new look at capitalism), and finance can have a higher calling.
Modified: 03/17/2015
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Say what?
The modern bane of experiencing too much information, yet having mostly underdetermined states, can lead to coping methods that are problematic, yet operationally effective for the most part.
Say what? Yes, the old adage says that the chemist talks to the physicists who talks to the mathematicians who talks to G-d. This means, of course, that we all cannot be all-knowing (all, meaning, of course, that some claim such). And, in the adage, there is a hierarchy which, in many cases, implies a type of superiority (and accompanying hubris for the less inferior). Also, the invoking of another discipline (usually some type of incomplete punt) without proper assessment (remember the theme of the blog) is not proper though it works, many times.
Civilization requires that we all do whatever it is that we do well while not screwing people (hear this, financial people?).
From time to time, some priviledged class (meaning, of course, of high pay and status) let's us down. Of course, these folks are allowed to fail just like the rest of us. The difference? Their failures hurt bunches of folks, much more than can some failing by a 'joe smoe' (no aspersions here to anyone specificially - seemed to be a cute tag).
The recent tragedy of AF447 has caused a concept called the coffin corner (see Miles O'Brien's blog for a good explanation) to pop into general awareness. In this case, there are all sorts of experts involved that we leave alone to handle these type of issues.
One thing to consider is what other types of 'Say what?' situations are there that may require some type of public awareness beyond what the old adage (above) describes?
That is, the public as a knowing entity; ah, the new media as the potential enabler.
Remarks:
09/09/09 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework.
08/19/2009 -- A whole bunch of say what? events have appeared in the past year. One of these has been the airing of the enthusiasm of quant-crowd as expressed by those going through MFE events. Kudos to those who try and succeed. But, one word of caution is in order. What bubble is going to come about from this new interest? Let me count the ways (in the works).
08/14/2009 -- A whole new type of 'say-what?' is showing up, such as readings of the law that somehow give more rights to corporations' personhood than to real persons.
07/23/2009 -- After the bust and the rebound, toxic assets are still a problem due to tranche realities.
07/05/2009 -- Software, versus data/model, as a given (Lord, help us, if we believe the software vendors are as magical as they would like us to think).
06/20/2009 -- Yes, rent can go to labor (new look at capitalism), and finance can have a higher calling.
06/17/2009 -- Here's a 'say-what?'. Milken, whom we'll use as a focal point to discuss several things, talks about the myths about him and makes comment. Mike is lucky that the web exists so as to provide the means for this type of clarification. There are several comments which will be good to analyze and to relate to the topics of this blog. His comment #13 makes him out almost to be the stockholder's Robin Hood.
Remember, the theme here is that a lot of securitization is bunk, many times. Sheesh, talk about a perpetual motion machine, always moving monies from the pockets of the hapless to that of the fat cats.
Modified: 08/24/2011
Say what? Yes, the old adage says that the chemist talks to the physicists who talks to the mathematicians who talks to G-d. This means, of course, that we all cannot be all-knowing (all, meaning, of course, that some claim such). And, in the adage, there is a hierarchy which, in many cases, implies a type of superiority (and accompanying hubris for the less inferior). Also, the invoking of another discipline (usually some type of incomplete punt) without proper assessment (remember the theme of the blog) is not proper though it works, many times.
Civilization requires that we all do whatever it is that we do well while not screwing people (hear this, financial people?).
From time to time, some priviledged class (meaning, of course, of high pay and status) let's us down. Of course, these folks are allowed to fail just like the rest of us. The difference? Their failures hurt bunches of folks, much more than can some failing by a 'joe smoe' (no aspersions here to anyone specificially - seemed to be a cute tag).
The recent tragedy of AF447 has caused a concept called the coffin corner (see Miles O'Brien's blog for a good explanation) to pop into general awareness. In this case, there are all sorts of experts involved that we leave alone to handle these type of issues.
One thing to consider is what other types of 'Say what?' situations are there that may require some type of public awareness beyond what the old adage (above) describes?
That is, the public as a knowing entity; ah, the new media as the potential enabler.
Remarks:
05/28/2011 -- The black box was recovered, via technology. Now, analysis shows that the air speed indicator did freeze causing a state of mis-readings which didn't allow proper control actions on part of the crew. There are a lot of lessons here which we'll get into. However, that computational frameworks and their executional events can get similarly into this type of state, and vertigo is not inappropriate to use here. This bears much discussion.
04/03/2011 -- Tis tranche and trash.
08/19/2009 -- A whole bunch of say what? events have appeared in the past year. One of these has been the airing of the enthusiasm of quant-crowd as expressed by those going through MFE events. Kudos to those who try and succeed. But, one word of caution is in order. What bubble is going to come about from this new interest? Let me count the ways (in the works).
08/14/2009 -- A whole new type of 'say-what?' is showing up, such as readings of the law that somehow give more rights to corporations' personhood than to real persons.
07/23/2009 -- After the bust and the rebound, toxic assets are still a problem due to tranche realities.
07/05/2009 -- Software, versus data/model, as a given (Lord, help us, if we believe the software vendors are as magical as they would like us to think).
06/20/2009 -- Yes, rent can go to labor (new look at capitalism), and finance can have a higher calling.
06/17/2009 -- Here's a 'say-what?'. Milken, whom we'll use as a focal point to discuss several things, talks about the myths about him and makes comment. Mike is lucky that the web exists so as to provide the means for this type of clarification. There are several comments which will be good to analyze and to relate to the topics of this blog. His comment #13 makes him out almost to be the stockholder's Robin Hood.
Remember, the theme here is that a lot of securitization is bunk, many times. Sheesh, talk about a perpetual motion machine, always moving monies from the pockets of the hapless to that of the fat cats.
Modified: 08/24/2011
Thursday, June 4, 2009
More basics
There is much to cover in looking at the basics and more. One thing of importance would be what 'truth' is or may be.
Ever ask anyone? Try it and see the different responses. As well, consider the types of response modes. That is, some immediately go to big-T issues. One might say that for some in the USA it's sufficient to go to a Constitution except those legal, and political, views are not applicable, always, to what is necessary for establishing scientific fact or for founding some mathematical process.
Those who deal with the subject like to describe various means for truth. There is a brief list that will be visited again (see Substantive theories, at Wiki).
Keep in mind, though, that the issues of underdetermination will be seen as important, as one would expect given the mention in this blog of quasi-empiricism many times. Too, 'being' will be kicked around a time or two.
The modern conundrum is that though we have worked out some truth issues people to people (note, please, that these resolutions of the problems are local and limited, as we can see from studying history), when the computational (artificial) comes into play, the issues are exacerbated for several reasons.
Though, they are also helped as we see with the convergence of views when reality is augmented. Just witness how twitter-ing builds swarms of affine entities. Look at how business can build upon what is thought of as a best practice to levels whose justification may need some scrutiny.
Remarks:
09/09/09 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework.
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.
07/23/2009 -- Some confoundedness results from not handling underdetermination properly. Of course, the whole thing is not new; it has been exacerbated and accelerated by common use of mathematics and computing. The genie is out of the bottle, folks. Hubris, in the modern age, will not relate back to engineers who have pen holders in their pockets. That is, those who resolve issues like we're seeing here will mostly be non-elite, and money does not buy the solution; people can but not in the sense of throwing them at a problem. No, there needs to be a fundamental shift to having highly trained, and intuitively capable, people involved in a process (hint, folks, not lights-out nor outsourcing - the new colonialism).
07/05/2009 -- Recent comments suggests a too strong belief in the computational.
Modified: 04/04/2011
Ever ask anyone? Try it and see the different responses. As well, consider the types of response modes. That is, some immediately go to big-T issues. One might say that for some in the USA it's sufficient to go to a Constitution except those legal, and political, views are not applicable, always, to what is necessary for establishing scientific fact or for founding some mathematical process.
Those who deal with the subject like to describe various means for truth. There is a brief list that will be visited again (see Substantive theories, at Wiki).
Keep in mind, though, that the issues of underdetermination will be seen as important, as one would expect given the mention in this blog of quasi-empiricism many times. Too, 'being' will be kicked around a time or two.
The modern conundrum is that though we have worked out some truth issues people to people (note, please, that these resolutions of the problems are local and limited, as we can see from studying history), when the computational (artificial) comes into play, the issues are exacerbated for several reasons.
Though, they are also helped as we see with the convergence of views when reality is augmented. Just witness how twitter-ing builds swarms of affine entities. Look at how business can build upon what is thought of as a best practice to levels whose justification may need some scrutiny.
Remarks:
04/03/2011 -- Need to look at some background issues.
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.
07/23/2009 -- Some confoundedness results from not handling underdetermination properly. Of course, the whole thing is not new; it has been exacerbated and accelerated by common use of mathematics and computing. The genie is out of the bottle, folks. Hubris, in the modern age, will not relate back to engineers who have pen holders in their pockets. That is, those who resolve issues like we're seeing here will mostly be non-elite, and money does not buy the solution; people can but not in the sense of throwing them at a problem. No, there needs to be a fundamental shift to having highly trained, and intuitively capable, people involved in a process (hint, folks, not lights-out nor outsourcing - the new colonialism).
07/05/2009 -- Recent comments suggests a too strong belief in the computational.
Modified: 04/04/2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)