This blog started two years ago with the purpose of looking at issues of computation interacting with being (ourselves, so to speak). That is, we have expertise which has been honed through myriads of years and which has been extended through generations by memes and which is still not sufficient to cover a whole lot of problems (yes, the infamous world hunger, getting a project done on time, and more) that is not capable of handling computing (and truth) without some significant changes (and, it's more than just handling hogwash).
Oh, yes, there are plenty of worldviews with answers already determined even though our experiences can indicate (except to those best-and-brightest who are completely entralled with their own mind's eye) that underdetermination is really our most frequent state (and we learn to make guesses to fill gaps - albeit this can be fun, too).
So, the original issues being addressed were general, such as things in themselves, tribal dynamics, temporal influences, the sirens of abstraction, those who know it all. There may have been a leaning toward engineering in the beginning as the focus for discussion, but finance/economics soon raised its head as of interest to the theme.
As it turns out, both engineering and economics have been unending founts of examples that can be used for motivation and illustration. The 787 controversies of the fall of 2007 created the need for a look at those issues, and that caused an engineering focus for awhile. In fact, the first post, beyond the Seeds, was looking at abstraction's appeal which has a very strong pull.
Just, look at the mess of the economy due to faulty mathematics.
That economics could offer such a wide range of topics related to truth engineering became apparent as engineering does work for the most part (are we not besieged on all sides by products demonstrating engineering prowess?).
We will show that it's the manager mindset that get things screwed up. Over the past couple of years, plenty of the discussion about the looming problems of the economy was right on. It was obvious that things were awry due to fundamental issues and, now we might add, that many of these were not resolved in the crash.
The past few days has the WSJ exclaiming that Goldman Sachs is making money hands over fists. Well, didn't they get a bailout too? Fold themselves under a wing of a government shelter for protection (ain't that so sweet?)?
You see, GS represents that part of the economy that is hardly useful (though, leeches do have an acknowledged medical use) except for its abilities to do the major sucking out of the pockets. Who is looking at their stuff in detail?
Well, will the new day handle these issues or will we just go back to the normal idiocy of a game run by fat cats that consumes lots of resources in maintaining itself and that, for the most part, is not necessary - yet, seems to be taken as some extreme example of the virtues of capitalism?
Oh, of course, casino capitalism.
Remarks:
11/30/2009 -- From 'Our basis' can grow a whole bunch.
09/09/09 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework.
09/08/2009 -- System risks are still there.
09/03/2009 -- Computational foci raise miraculous need. Yes, we need to talk NP and more way to cope. Take, for instance, truth maintenance which is NP, yet that is no deterrent for the effort covered by the blog. Why? Ah, we're getting to that.
09/02/2009 -- Lean assumes a current framework which can be improved. That the process is still effective during the change can be checked easily. However, if it is not still effective or we do not have a stable framework, then we were, by necessity, in the undecidable state.
Modified: 11/30/2009
Showing posts with label Effectiveness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Effectiveness. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
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
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Some basics
Recently, I stumbled upon a video at Gregory Chaitin's site where he is one of the commentators about four people (BBC) who were ahead of their times. These were Cantor, Boltzmann, Gödel, and Turing. One theme of the presentation was that things are 'topsy-turvy' (Chaitin's characterization) due to uncertainty (and its power, so to speak). Chaitin takes it further to show how the computer exacerbates the problem.
The video is worth the time (which says a lot from someone who would rather read the transcript) if only to allow one to recognize the importance (ignoring, for now, T-issues, though they are alluded to in the video's narrative) of the four views. As we sit here in 2009 (or so), it is very easy to forget the basis underlying what we take for granted. In some senses, the underpinnings are very weak.
Ah, one might say that this is a motivation for truth engineering, in part, as we really ought to keep the principles (their formulation and foundation and failings) in mind. In fact, computational intelligence, which is what we deal with almost ubiquitously, demands such.
I first got interested in Chaitin's work from reading his view on mathematics and its limits. At the time, my day-to-day focus was applied AI and computational mathematics which ought to be sufficient to allow admittance of uncertainty, usually under the name of undecidability (cloaking the issue under a numeric framework does not eliminate the problem). Chaitin made sense as there was a resonance with what I had observed.
Some of this may appear to be too philosophical or academic, yet we can relax, a little, the rhetoric and point to a concept already used multiple times here, namely quasi-empiricism (see Wigner, et al), which was first expressed under an operational framework.
So, expect that there will a few posts that lay out some basics, such as the Incompleteness Theorem, the Decision Problem, and more. There too will be other concepts such as those related to complexity and NP. That last is why brute force cannot work, as we saw with truth maintenance.
Remarks:
09/09/09 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework.
09/02/2009 -- Quants (both financial and engineering) ignore complexity.
07/05/2009 -- As said, couching things numerically does not remove these problems.
06/17/2009 -- Theme of the basics continues.
Modified: 04/04/2011
The video is worth the time (which says a lot from someone who would rather read the transcript) if only to allow one to recognize the importance (ignoring, for now, T-issues, though they are alluded to in the video's narrative) of the four views. As we sit here in 2009 (or so), it is very easy to forget the basis underlying what we take for granted. In some senses, the underpinnings are very weak.
Ah, one might say that this is a motivation for truth engineering, in part, as we really ought to keep the principles (their formulation and foundation and failings) in mind. In fact, computational intelligence, which is what we deal with almost ubiquitously, demands such.
I first got interested in Chaitin's work from reading his view on mathematics and its limits. At the time, my day-to-day focus was applied AI and computational mathematics which ought to be sufficient to allow admittance of uncertainty, usually under the name of undecidability (cloaking the issue under a numeric framework does not eliminate the problem). Chaitin made sense as there was a resonance with what I had observed.
Some of this may appear to be too philosophical or academic, yet we can relax, a little, the rhetoric and point to a concept already used multiple times here, namely quasi-empiricism (see Wigner, et al), which was first expressed under an operational framework.
So, expect that there will a few posts that lay out some basics, such as the Incompleteness Theorem, the Decision Problem, and more. There too will be other concepts such as those related to complexity and NP. That last is why brute force cannot work, as we saw with truth maintenance.
Remarks:
04/03/2011 -- Need to look at some background issues.
09/02/2009 -- Quants (both financial and engineering) ignore complexity.
07/05/2009 -- As said, couching things numerically does not remove these problems.
06/17/2009 -- Theme of the basics continues.
Modified: 04/04/2011
Friday, October 24, 2008
Constructive quants
As we see, many 'quant' views can lead to messes, due to the fairy dust nature of magical means (to boot, the whole dynamics of ponzi/made-off, by necessity).
We'll get technical after some jaw-boning. To date, the evaluation schemes seem to have been mostly measuring of pocket-books. That is, the richest are the best and brightest according to this view. We'll have to address that once more and in a better fashion.
Too, flim-flam of bad theoretics (game and otherwise), plus notions that stochastic applied to fundamentals like calculus adds in a metaphysical aura, and just bad ontology, all contribute to the confusion.
As in a lot of bubbles, the young 'uns were allowed to run around without supervision as most oldies could not handle the necessary details. Well, one lesson we might learn is that those who can are still able to process and understand mathematics after the age of 25. That is, understand with the qualifications put by old John von Neuman himself, namely we just get used to it.
Also, computations applied by quants need to be sensitive to the lessons of Chaitin's views on topsy-turviness in the modern age.
Ah, this will be so much fun!!!
Remarks:
01/14/2015 -- Chimera and charade? One example.
11/21/2010 -- Three years ago, it was said: Computational foci raise miraculous need. Still applies.
We'll get technical after some jaw-boning. To date, the evaluation schemes seem to have been mostly measuring of pocket-books. That is, the richest are the best and brightest according to this view. We'll have to address that once more and in a better fashion.
Too, flim-flam of bad theoretics (game and otherwise), plus notions that stochastic applied to fundamentals like calculus adds in a metaphysical aura, and just bad ontology, all contribute to the confusion.
As in a lot of bubbles, the young 'uns were allowed to run around without supervision as most oldies could not handle the necessary details. Well, one lesson we might learn is that those who can are still able to process and understand mathematics after the age of 25. That is, understand with the qualifications put by old John von Neuman himself, namely we just get used to it.
Also, computations applied by quants need to be sensitive to the lessons of Chaitin's views on topsy-turviness in the modern age.
Ah, this will be so much fun!!!
Remarks:
01/14/2015 -- Chimera and charade? One example.
05/25/2011 -- Lemons problem, dark pools, ... Oh, so much to look at!
04/03/2011 -- Tis tranche and trash.
09/09/09 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework, for controlling quants.
08/31/2009 -- Go to FEDaerated to see Quant series that will expand to cover topics both theoretical and technical.
05/27/2009 -- Topsy-turvy will be addressed more fully in both an epistemologic and an operational sense.
03/25/2009 -- Rhetoric can be fun, but we have to get into these issues with depth and technicalities.
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.
Modified: 01/14/2015
08/31/2009 -- Go to FEDaerated to see Quant series that will expand to cover topics both theoretical and technical.
05/27/2009 -- Topsy-turvy will be addressed more fully in both an epistemologic and an operational sense.
03/25/2009 -- Rhetoric can be fun, but we have to get into these issues with depth and technicalities.
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.
Modified: 01/14/2015
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Economic groundwork
In order to establish where things may have gone awry and why it will be necessary to look at what has gone on and from when. That is, there have been claims here of a gaming-centric ontology going bad; well, let's see what that might mean.
So, at the bottom, let's suppose that we can look at two classes of people, doers and speculators (next post). Now, the doers are those who keep the world going with their efforts; for many of these, life is a drudge with very little payback; for others who are the real cream of life (by aptitude, attitude and application), their talents get used however without sufficient reward; we could characterize this useful set (the old adage of the ant works) for a long time and with a whole bunch of words (but let's not, yet).
Those other type abounds, too, yet, the world has continued despite their machinations (speaking of the old adage, we're talking the grasshopper). You know, financiers might fall within this realm. Back at some point, one thought of financing as being involved in production or transportation or something else real. But, guess what. Around 1973, the fact that the mathematics was understood (having been created by doers, mind you) and that there were sufficient advances in the computational led to what was done at the CBOE and to provide the means to enable financial gaming to a maximum extent.
What happened? Well, option processing, essentially. Options are only one of several types of derivatives. Yet, they are a good example to analyze their problems to attempt to lay out a better framework for financial economics that would somehow inhibit forthiness and other problems.
Too, a proper viewpoint might help balance that mindset that glorifies riches (gosh, even a premier Ivy League school which started for the glorification of God [early motto: For Christ and the Church] is a player and raker) and allows the pockets of the hapless to be picked with impunity.
The exercising of an 'option' is a type of leverage; we will need to enumerate types of leverage, such as silly game 1, silly game 2, etc.
The whole notion is that economics (financial and otherwise) can get divorced from reality. Fortunately, engineering does not have this problem so much. But, when we apply engineering to finance, watch out! As Buckley, stop and think. How do we get back some realness for several reasons (such as, allowing the boomers to have a reasonable retirement)?
Remarks:
03/25/2013 -- The Atlantic had an article about King Abdullah II. Now, he is an example of a doer, from several angles. What I liked when I read it was that while being educated in Massachusetts, he bussed tables. What that means for those who don't know is clean up dirty dishes and such. When I, as a young man, was in the US Army, we had still had KP duty which included such types of things. Another task that ought to be tried once by everyone: cleaning the grease pit.
05/09/2011 -- Doers, reconsidered.
So, at the bottom, let's suppose that we can look at two classes of people, doers and speculators (next post). Now, the doers are those who keep the world going with their efforts; for many of these, life is a drudge with very little payback; for others who are the real cream of life (by aptitude, attitude and application), their talents get used however without sufficient reward; we could characterize this useful set (the old adage of the ant works) for a long time and with a whole bunch of words (but let's not, yet).
Those other type abounds, too, yet, the world has continued despite their machinations (speaking of the old adage, we're talking the grasshopper). You know, financiers might fall within this realm. Back at some point, one thought of financing as being involved in production or transportation or something else real. But, guess what. Around 1973, the fact that the mathematics was understood (having been created by doers, mind you) and that there were sufficient advances in the computational led to what was done at the CBOE and to provide the means to enable financial gaming to a maximum extent.
What happened? Well, option processing, essentially. Options are only one of several types of derivatives. Yet, they are a good example to analyze their problems to attempt to lay out a better framework for financial economics that would somehow inhibit forthiness and other problems.
Too, a proper viewpoint might help balance that mindset that glorifies riches (gosh, even a premier Ivy League school which started for the glorification of God [early motto: For Christ and the Church] is a player and raker) and allows the pockets of the hapless to be picked with impunity.
The exercising of an 'option' is a type of leverage; we will need to enumerate types of leverage, such as silly game 1, silly game 2, etc.
The whole notion is that economics (financial and otherwise) can get divorced from reality. Fortunately, engineering does not have this problem so much. But, when we apply engineering to finance, watch out! As Buckley, stop and think. How do we get back some realness for several reasons (such as, allowing the boomers to have a reasonable retirement)?
Remarks:
03/25/2013 -- The Atlantic had an article about King Abdullah II. Now, he is an example of a doer, from several angles. What I liked when I read it was that while being educated in Massachusetts, he bussed tables. What that means for those who don't know is clean up dirty dishes and such. When I, as a young man, was in the US Army, we had still had KP duty which included such types of things. Another task that ought to be tried once by everyone: cleaning the grease pit.
05/09/2011 -- Doers, reconsidered.
11/04/2010 -- Big Ben is still putting us at risk and trashing the savers.
09/09/2009 -- Alan's reign will be looked at, in time.
12/18/2008 -- Things were going along so fast (the meltdown, made-off, ...) that the basic message got lost. We'll start again with a new look at leveraging.
09/14/2008 -- Minsky's hierarchy is very much apropos, here, among other things. Probably, anything beyond hedging (which is respectful, if done right) and part of speculation (perhaps, halfway along some spectrum that could very well be defined) would be consider suspect and definitely ponzi-like.
Alan's and Ben's (you guys need to rethink your position) position that we cannot see crap when it is happening (oh no, says Alan, we can only clean up after the fact) is very much indicative of how blind is their sight. The proper tools are there, folks.
Modified: 03/25/2013
12/18/2008 -- Things were going along so fast (the meltdown, made-off, ...) that the basic message got lost. We'll start again with a new look at leveraging.
09/14/2008 -- Minsky's hierarchy is very much apropos, here, among other things. Probably, anything beyond hedging (which is respectful, if done right) and part of speculation (perhaps, halfway along some spectrum that could very well be defined) would be consider suspect and definitely ponzi-like.
Alan's and Ben's (you guys need to rethink your position) position that we cannot see crap when it is happening (oh no, says Alan, we can only clean up after the fact) is very much indicative of how blind is their sight. The proper tools are there, folks.
Modified: 03/25/2013
Monday, February 18, 2008
Loops and truth
Recent posts have had an economic flavor as this topic is important to engineering using a larger definition of economics that gets beyond money and scarce resources.
In a sense, any decision process (and, folks, computational processes are nothing but decisions) has aspects related to economics.
Minsky's model really deals with how far we can carry relationship before having to check-in with reality. For instance, feedback loops work (such as, automated flight) since they tie into sensors.
What are the data that can drive a project or an economy? Well, that is the subject of the 7'oop7 blog, in part. It is of interest here, to boot.
So, getting back to Minsky, he proposed what might be termed a hierarchy of values and their measurables. That is, we have things that are more concrete (like a plane that can actually fly given fuel, pilot, and other things) and more abstract (like some plan - even if computionally supported- or design - until proven). Then, we have (essentially) extrapolations from that.
Our abstractions can get far removed from reality (whatever that is, we'll get into). In fact, some mathematicians (those with the pure hearts) take great glee in being thusly removed. Whereas, those who have to actually build things (like airplanes) cannot remove themselves too far from what is real.
So, dealing with the real, we have to like hedging, though that concept has been usurped by particular types of funded thinking. It's the first-order abstraction that will work and be in control, given that certain rules are met.
Next up is speculation. Think of this as the realm where the hype versus hypothesis dynamics play out. Again, this can be controlled, though risk is a definite element here.
Too, it is here where management starts to wreck havoc (the old pun that in a manager's meeting, water runs uphill is apropos) due to their having insufficient data or having improper grasp of what goes behind the data (an argument that data is function-based and not merely related to capture/retrieval operations).
One might say that we need the hedge realm in order for the systems engineer to work. Then, we need the speculative for the business and economic goals to play out. Note, though, that the speculative is only as good as its underlying hedging ontology.
Finally, we have the Ponzi realm, according to Minsky, for which all bets are off. It's the realm of those with either too much time on their hands or no clue about the impacts that their decisions have on others (like second-hand smoke, we ought not allow secondary and tertiary and more economics effect to be played out in the hands of those without ethics) or the like.
From a project viewpoint, the house-of-cards upon which rests some computational ontologies are not unlike the Ponzi. We'll get back to that in the context of how the quasi-empirical necessitates certain types of project activity, such as testing early and often.
Yes, Minsky had some powerful insight here that engineers need to think about.
Remarks:
11/04/2010 -- Big Ben is still putting us at risk and trashing the savers.
In a sense, any decision process (and, folks, computational processes are nothing but decisions) has aspects related to economics.
Minsky's model really deals with how far we can carry relationship before having to check-in with reality. For instance, feedback loops work (such as, automated flight) since they tie into sensors.
What are the data that can drive a project or an economy? Well, that is the subject of the 7'oop7 blog, in part. It is of interest here, to boot.
So, getting back to Minsky, he proposed what might be termed a hierarchy of values and their measurables. That is, we have things that are more concrete (like a plane that can actually fly given fuel, pilot, and other things) and more abstract (like some plan - even if computionally supported- or design - until proven). Then, we have (essentially) extrapolations from that.
Our abstractions can get far removed from reality (whatever that is, we'll get into). In fact, some mathematicians (those with the pure hearts) take great glee in being thusly removed. Whereas, those who have to actually build things (like airplanes) cannot remove themselves too far from what is real.
So, dealing with the real, we have to like hedging, though that concept has been usurped by particular types of funded thinking. It's the first-order abstraction that will work and be in control, given that certain rules are met.
Next up is speculation. Think of this as the realm where the hype versus hypothesis dynamics play out. Again, this can be controlled, though risk is a definite element here.
Too, it is here where management starts to wreck havoc (the old pun that in a manager's meeting, water runs uphill is apropos) due to their having insufficient data or having improper grasp of what goes behind the data (an argument that data is function-based and not merely related to capture/retrieval operations).
One might say that we need the hedge realm in order for the systems engineer to work. Then, we need the speculative for the business and economic goals to play out. Note, though, that the speculative is only as good as its underlying hedging ontology.
Finally, we have the Ponzi realm, according to Minsky, for which all bets are off. It's the realm of those with either too much time on their hands or no clue about the impacts that their decisions have on others (like second-hand smoke, we ought not allow secondary and tertiary and more economics effect to be played out in the hands of those without ethics) or the like.
From a project viewpoint, the house-of-cards upon which rests some computational ontologies are not unlike the Ponzi. We'll get back to that in the context of how the quasi-empirical necessitates certain types of project activity, such as testing early and often.
Yes, Minsky had some powerful insight here that engineers need to think about.
Remarks:
11/04/2010 -- Big Ben is still putting us at risk and trashing the savers.
09/12/2009 -- Sandbox was used without definition. Let's discuss that concept.
12/17/2008 -- We'll use made-off in lieu of ponzi, henceforth.
09/14/2008 --
As seen in the 7'oops7 grouping related to Minsky's model, examples abound of finance going awry, very much due to moral hazards being allowed to continue in the name of capitalism, leading to the need for bailouts as we've seen much of, of late. Several arguments get in the way. For instance, these are complicated issues; yet, some complications are self-created in order to continue the play ground (gaming). And, we don't know a whole lot; why? Well, we're dealing with the dismal science. Yet, even the premiere sciences have (or will, at some point, have) to deal with the issues of quasi-empiricism and what they might mean. So, let's get the sandbox defined, and in place, for those who need the thrill. The more mature minds ought to be considering how to establish a more solid basis for the future (the metaphor: not only is the current financial scheme on sand, it's continually washed by waves; we need to build the land of continents that can stand the test of time. ).
08/03/2008 --
This post showed how Minsky's model for the inevitable outcome of gaming in finance could be an analog for engineering management issues. To take the analysis further, money has to be looked at in depth in an attempt to show why we've lined up on the side of the gamers and to attempt to look at alternative methods that are not so painful to the hapless.
Modified: 08/24/2011
12/17/2008 -- We'll use made-off in lieu of ponzi, henceforth.
09/14/2008 --
As seen in the 7'oops7 grouping related to Minsky's model, examples abound of finance going awry, very much due to moral hazards being allowed to continue in the name of capitalism, leading to the need for bailouts as we've seen much of, of late. Several arguments get in the way. For instance, these are complicated issues; yet, some complications are self-created in order to continue the play ground (gaming). And, we don't know a whole lot; why? Well, we're dealing with the dismal science. Yet, even the premiere sciences have (or will, at some point, have) to deal with the issues of quasi-empiricism and what they might mean. So, let's get the sandbox defined, and in place, for those who need the thrill. The more mature minds ought to be considering how to establish a more solid basis for the future (the metaphor: not only is the current financial scheme on sand, it's continually washed by waves; we need to build the land of continents that can stand the test of time. ).
08/03/2008 --
This post showed how Minsky's model for the inevitable outcome of gaming in finance could be an analog for engineering management issues. To take the analysis further, money has to be looked at in depth in an attempt to show why we've lined up on the side of the gamers and to attempt to look at alternative methods that are not so painful to the hapless.
Modified: 08/24/2011
Sunday, December 30, 2007
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.
11/21/2010 -- Three years ago, it was said: Computational foci raise miraculous need. Still applies.
--
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.
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.
Of course, there are arguments for not re-inventing the wheel, as we seem to do perpetually.
Modified: 01/05/2015
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.
Of course, there are arguments for not re-inventing the wheel, as we seem to do perpetually.
Modified: 01/05/2015
Friday, October 19, 2007
Intelligence, value, and truth
Intelligence can be associated with playing games and winning. We have plenty of examples, including those who excel in a particular type of society. Nowadays, in the materialistic gaming that rewards greed and accumulation, the smarter have more, in terms measured in manipulating for wealth and associated goods, though many of the related world views might be considered suspect.
We can talk about several types of traits that depict intelligence. Gardner's view is an example. One notion for determining intelligence might be to define who can (or ought to) lead in a manner of meritocracy. We have those academically related tests, to boot, such as those that terrorize the teens, in that they can set the stage for their lives.
Though we use intelligence and figure ways to assess the ability of those with whom we relate, all those theoretic notions can reduce to matters of gaming. Yet, from the viewpoint concerning all, how does it sit for the future if what we want people to do is strive for those successes that go away from 'real' accomplishment? That is, piling up money does not provide for the table nor health -yet, it can support those who do. Neither does generating a pit of critics make for progress.
Of course, it is to be expected that some roles are for entertainment or gaming purposes which may be highly rewarded.
So a world-view dealing with truth from a more complete framework just might attempt to demonstrate that touch labor brings much more value to the proposition than the guy/gal sitting at the top and many of those in-between. Somehow, things are screwy, almost topsy-turvy. That is, those who want to make something actual, such as a new plane, really need more respect from their managers and from the financial 'fakirs'.
At the top, some managers act like pirates (recent article in Business Week). In this regard, there are many non-sustainable attributes that we, as intelligent adults, need to analyze perhaps to consider traits that might lead to better conditions in general.
For instance, would we prefer the Dalai Lama to some crass deal maker? How about a good, intellectual priest as a leader? (see Remarks)
Somehow, mathematics, with its deep appeal, has been usurped being misused as a magic bullet that many modern techniques and processes. Thankfully, software provides a good example from which to extract items for discourse (including the web, drivers of flown systems, and more) in this regard, where we need to consider why we expect effectiveness.
Of course, truth engineering, neither silver nor a bullet, looks to help guide our exploration of the problems and definition of possible solutions.
Remarks:
03/17/2015 -- Still appropriate.
06/12/2014 -- One way to look at this: cognitive elitism.
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).
05/03/2012 -- We'll start a 'meme' discussion, Either / Or.
09/03/2009 -- Computational foci raise miraculous need. Yes, we need to talk NP and more.
05/27/2009 -- That we have topsy-turvy needs to be addressed more fully in both an epistemologic and an operational sense.
01/26/2009 -- Now a new day and way to consider these matters.
07/31/2008 -- It's not enough to rant and spout off. So, let's start something constructive by looking at money and what it is.
mm/dd/2007 (earlier note) -- The notion of the 'priest' as leader is not to argue for the integration of the church and state; part of the western heritage is rendering, as necessary, to Caesar. Rather, it pertains to the possible benefit of suppressed self-interest from those at the top; that is, is it inevitable that those in power succumb to the idea that they hold what might be considered a 'divinely-given right'?
One reads about the head of Notre Dame, the University, living simply. Somehow, the zen master's little, sparse room appeals to the imagination more than does the mansion motivated by extreme ostentation.
Of course, big 'T' issues may be argued here; but, to be brief, how do we recognize and manage hubris before the effects? Why? The 'effects' affect plenty of hapless souls whose only crime was to get in the way or to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Modified: 03/17/2015
We can talk about several types of traits that depict intelligence. Gardner's view is an example. One notion for determining intelligence might be to define who can (or ought to) lead in a manner of meritocracy. We have those academically related tests, to boot, such as those that terrorize the teens, in that they can set the stage for their lives.
Though we use intelligence and figure ways to assess the ability of those with whom we relate, all those theoretic notions can reduce to matters of gaming. Yet, from the viewpoint concerning all, how does it sit for the future if what we want people to do is strive for those successes that go away from 'real' accomplishment? That is, piling up money does not provide for the table nor health -yet, it can support those who do. Neither does generating a pit of critics make for progress.
Of course, it is to be expected that some roles are for entertainment or gaming purposes which may be highly rewarded.
So a world-view dealing with truth from a more complete framework just might attempt to demonstrate that touch labor brings much more value to the proposition than the guy/gal sitting at the top and many of those in-between. Somehow, things are screwy, almost topsy-turvy. That is, those who want to make something actual, such as a new plane, really need more respect from their managers and from the financial 'fakirs'.
At the top, some managers act like pirates (recent article in Business Week). In this regard, there are many non-sustainable attributes that we, as intelligent adults, need to analyze perhaps to consider traits that might lead to better conditions in general.
For instance, would we prefer the Dalai Lama to some crass deal maker? How about a good, intellectual priest as a leader? (see Remarks)
Somehow, mathematics, with its deep appeal, has been usurped being misused as a magic bullet that many modern techniques and processes. Thankfully, software provides a good example from which to extract items for discourse (including the web, drivers of flown systems, and more) in this regard, where we need to consider why we expect effectiveness.
Of course, truth engineering, neither silver nor a bullet, looks to help guide our exploration of the problems and definition of possible solutions.
Remarks:
03/17/2015 -- Still appropriate.
06/12/2014 -- One way to look at this: cognitive elitism.
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).
05/03/2012 -- We'll start a 'meme' discussion, Either / Or.
09/03/2009 -- Computational foci raise miraculous need. Yes, we need to talk NP and more.
05/27/2009 -- That we have topsy-turvy needs to be addressed more fully in both an epistemologic and an operational sense.
01/26/2009 -- Now a new day and way to consider these matters.
07/31/2008 -- It's not enough to rant and spout off. So, let's start something constructive by looking at money and what it is.
mm/dd/2007 (earlier note) -- The notion of the 'priest' as leader is not to argue for the integration of the church and state; part of the western heritage is rendering, as necessary, to Caesar. Rather, it pertains to the possible benefit of suppressed self-interest from those at the top; that is, is it inevitable that those in power succumb to the idea that they hold what might be considered a 'divinely-given right'?
One reads about the head of Notre Dame, the University, living simply. Somehow, the zen master's little, sparse room appeals to the imagination more than does the mansion motivated by extreme ostentation.
Of course, big 'T' issues may be argued here; but, to be brief, how do we recognize and manage hubris before the effects? Why? The 'effects' affect plenty of hapless souls whose only crime was to get in the way or to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Modified: 03/17/2015
Friday, October 5, 2007
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.
Remarks:
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
Remarks:
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
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
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Exuberance unbounded
Just a short note, to be expanded.
This thread, and many posts, will deal with the mathematical advances, as augmented by computational prowess, and how these have no underlying theory except those as may have been defined and depicted in a tribal sense (not pejorative); 'no underlying' pertains to the operational nature of what we know and discover.
Yet, there are many schools of thought related to these issues. One gets 'vertigo' just pondering all the permutations that abound. Attempts at limiting the expansionary trends come from various sides; we will look at this more fully.
No wonder that it is so easy for a management mindset to be overcome by the magic of it all; 'to whom does one assign trust?' is a continual question. That there is this blog shows the need, hopefully, and the means, perhaps, to go forward with the necessary analysis.
The saving grace? That we can be, at least, quasi-empirical; emphasizing the operational is important from the little 't' sense of truth. Any role for big 'T' Truth? Well, we shall see.
Remarks:
09/03/2009 -- Computational foci raise miraculous need. Yes, we need to talk NP and more.
05/27/2009 -- That we have topsy-turvy needs to be addressed more fully in both an epistemologic and an operational sense.
01/27/2009 -- A new day. As described a year ago, things continue to fall apart. "You see, this scenario dreamt about by Adam Smith has descended into a computationally based mayhem which has lost its mathematical, political, and spiritual basis and upon which there cannot be a sustained economy. The corpses of the system litter the landscape."
Expect more effort in firming up the earned-value (and related) discussions.
Modified: 04/04/2011
This thread, and many posts, will deal with the mathematical advances, as augmented by computational prowess, and how these have no underlying theory except those as may have been defined and depicted in a tribal sense (not pejorative); 'no underlying' pertains to the operational nature of what we know and discover.
Yet, there are many schools of thought related to these issues. One gets 'vertigo' just pondering all the permutations that abound. Attempts at limiting the expansionary trends come from various sides; we will look at this more fully.
No wonder that it is so easy for a management mindset to be overcome by the magic of it all; 'to whom does one assign trust?' is a continual question. That there is this blog shows the need, hopefully, and the means, perhaps, to go forward with the necessary analysis.
The saving grace? That we can be, at least, quasi-empirical; emphasizing the operational is important from the little 't' sense of truth. Any role for big 'T' Truth? Well, we shall see.
Remarks:
04/04/2011 -- Need to look at some background.
05/27/2009 -- That we have topsy-turvy needs to be addressed more fully in both an epistemologic and an operational sense.
01/27/2009 -- A new day. As described a year ago, things continue to fall apart. "You see, this scenario dreamt about by Adam Smith has descended into a computationally based mayhem which has lost its mathematical, political, and spiritual basis and upon which there cannot be a sustained economy. The corpses of the system litter the landscape."
Expect more effort in firming up the earned-value (and related) discussions.
Modified: 04/04/2011
Friday, September 14, 2007
These delicate balances
There are several balances that pertain to life. How well we handle these contributes to success. That these balances are difficult to maintain will be part of the on-going discussion.
Much progress has come from better handling of the abstract as well as from improved facilities for both obtaining data and evaluating such as evidence. Medicine is one of many examples where an evidenced-based approach is evolving (notice the criticism section). In the financial realm, much effort has gone to sustain a floor (bail-out, if you would) through various mechanisms that are not unlike balancing (or, perhaps, juggling).
In the present (the now), looking forward can keep things going; looking backward allows analysis. Our growing facilities with the abstract can lead us to think that we can look forward 20-20, even though our experiences might tell us otherwise. So, we can get the mismatch, such as in a major program, between expectations (which differ by role and interest) and the actual status.
Too, because of scope issues and their complications, there is a need to prune possible expansions by level (depth search) and extent (breadth search). In terms of real programs, both the management and operational (including engineering and doing) views must maintain several balances. The latter needs to have a much lower depth in its involvement.
One problem that we face is that the ontology will change both by level and extent; truth engineering has a role that will be described further.
Remarks:
11/04/2010 -- Big Ben is still putting us at risk and trashing the savers.
Much progress has come from better handling of the abstract as well as from improved facilities for both obtaining data and evaluating such as evidence. Medicine is one of many examples where an evidenced-based approach is evolving (notice the criticism section). In the financial realm, much effort has gone to sustain a floor (bail-out, if you would) through various mechanisms that are not unlike balancing (or, perhaps, juggling).
In the present (the now), looking forward can keep things going; looking backward allows analysis. Our growing facilities with the abstract can lead us to think that we can look forward 20-20, even though our experiences might tell us otherwise. So, we can get the mismatch, such as in a major program, between expectations (which differ by role and interest) and the actual status.
Too, because of scope issues and their complications, there is a need to prune possible expansions by level (depth search) and extent (breadth search). In terms of real programs, both the management and operational (including engineering and doing) views must maintain several balances. The latter needs to have a much lower depth in its involvement.
One problem that we face is that the ontology will change both by level and extent; truth engineering has a role that will be described further.
Remarks:
11/04/2010 -- Big Ben is still putting us at risk and trashing the savers.
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 -- A new day. As described a year ago, things continue to fall apart. "You see, this scenario dreamt about by Adam Smith has descended into a computationally based mayhem which has lost its mathematical, political, and spiritual basis and upon which there cannot be a sustained economy. The corpses of the system litter the landscape."
Modified: 08/24/2011
01/27/2009 -- A new day. As described a year ago, things continue to fall apart. "You see, this scenario dreamt about by Adam Smith has descended into a computationally based mayhem which has lost its mathematical, political, and spiritual basis and upon which there cannot be a sustained economy. The corpses of the system litter the landscape."
Modified: 08/24/2011
Monday, September 10, 2007
Unreasonable effectiveness
The appeal of abstraction may arise from several sources. One of these might be that we have shown modeling to have a lot of benefits where the type of modeling could be of many types, such as CAD/CAE, organizational structure, or process improvements.
With the advance of computing ability, the techniques and accomplishments that can be attributable to modeling have increased rapidly. In many cases, the model might become the focus; actually, in some cases, the model is how we know due to our quasi-empirical limits.
In relation to the title, we might need to look further at modeling. Perhaps, a question similar to that of Wigner and others about the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences" might be in order.
Why are these modeling techniques so effective in engineering? A related question might ask why do we allow the model of a thing to stand for the thing, in many cases, to a greater extent than might be warranted. Yet, as we know, sometimes all we have is the model.
Prior to computer assistance, there was a wider disparity between abstraction and what could be reduced through calculation. That gap has been partly filled with advances as we see from a recent example where we see that some modeling can be used in place of physical experiences.
As the definitional issues related to truth engineering are considered, we will need to look at a wide-range of examples and describe a fairly broad range of issues.
Remarks:
06/11/2015 -- There will be a rework here and a rework there.
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).
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.
09/03/2009 -- Computational foci raise miraculous need. Yes, we need to talk NP and more.
08/20/2009 -- We've railed about modelers using PDEs taking their results to be some equivalent to natural observations. Financial mathematics has even worse of a problem.
03/25/2009 -- Rhetoric can be fun, but we have to get into these issues with depth and technicalities.
01/27/2009 -- Now a new day and way to consider these matters.
09/14/2008 -- Failures and bailouts seem to be the name of the game lately. Oh, yes, that a use of game which is quite acceptable. The railings are against games that allow others to place risk upon those who are not playing or who are not even aware. So, thanks, Ben, and all those (you, too, Alan, who set the stage for the current mess), who are responsible for my tax dollars going to bail out those who are prone to playing to a morally hazardous script. Sheesh!
There are two major factors, not to ignore all the others. These are the computer (systems and users gone amok) and mathematics (ah, it's been spoon-fed to several generations such that now we're seeing serious mis-applications).
07/31/2008 -- It is apparent that finance (and related economics) is far more delusional in this regard than is engineering. Why? The latter has Nature as its lab. The former only has gaming the world.
Modified: 06/11/2015
With the advance of computing ability, the techniques and accomplishments that can be attributable to modeling have increased rapidly. In many cases, the model might become the focus; actually, in some cases, the model is how we know due to our quasi-empirical limits.
In relation to the title, we might need to look further at modeling. Perhaps, a question similar to that of Wigner and others about the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences" might be in order.
Why are these modeling techniques so effective in engineering? A related question might ask why do we allow the model of a thing to stand for the thing, in many cases, to a greater extent than might be warranted. Yet, as we know, sometimes all we have is the model.
Prior to computer assistance, there was a wider disparity between abstraction and what could be reduced through calculation. That gap has been partly filled with advances as we see from a recent example where we see that some modeling can be used in place of physical experiences.
As the definitional issues related to truth engineering are considered, we will need to look at a wide-range of examples and describe a fairly broad range of issues.
Remarks:
06/11/2015 -- There will be a rework here and a rework there.
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).
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.
09/03/2009 -- Computational foci raise miraculous need. Yes, we need to talk NP and more.
08/20/2009 -- We've railed about modelers using PDEs taking their results to be some equivalent to natural observations. Financial mathematics has even worse of a problem.
03/25/2009 -- Rhetoric can be fun, but we have to get into these issues with depth and technicalities.
01/27/2009 -- Now a new day and way to consider these matters.
09/14/2008 -- Failures and bailouts seem to be the name of the game lately. Oh, yes, that a use of game which is quite acceptable. The railings are against games that allow others to place risk upon those who are not playing or who are not even aware. So, thanks, Ben, and all those (you, too, Alan, who set the stage for the current mess), who are responsible for my tax dollars going to bail out those who are prone to playing to a morally hazardous script. Sheesh!
There are two major factors, not to ignore all the others. These are the computer (systems and users gone amok) and mathematics (ah, it's been spoon-fed to several generations such that now we're seeing serious mis-applications).
07/31/2008 -- It is apparent that finance (and related economics) is far more delusional in this regard than is engineering. Why? The latter has Nature as its lab. The former only has gaming the world.
Modified: 06/11/2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)