Normative mathematics

To be defined. After reading of the constructive approach (at Wikipedia - much better now than a few years ago - see also, Scientific method), it's time to do this work.

Last time, we mentioned normative economics as this is one of the areas of application. Too, we looked at this at Fedaerated.

The excluded middle will play a part. Too, quasi-empiricism will be central.

Remarks:   Modified: 01/23/2015

01/23/2015 -- Truth deals with theorems, in part. That is, a theorem is a rigorous type of demonstration; demonstrations can be of many varieties and of various levels of rigorousness. That something is of rigor may, but not by necessity, make it to repeatable and acceptable. The former means that anyone, anywhere can do the demonstration (the possible need for provisional restraints is acknowledged). This repeatability is part of the public face of a demonstration which removes it from (sets it above) the subjective (no denigration intended). Science, as we have seen, has found success with this aspect of mathematics.

Acceptableness comes from convention and by agreement (all arguments otherwise will be noted). Quasi-empirical efforts in mathematics allow us to look at the issues.

No less a talent than Gauss, though, said this: through systematic palpable experimentation. When? On being asked about how he came up with his theorems.

What does this mean? Lots, especially, to us. We like the use of palpable. For one, from this, we see support for our peripatetic leanings (to be discussed).

Truth Engineering, anew

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

--

The website will be configured. Too, the definition awaits further discussion. However it is technically oriented as shown by the contents of some posts.

The posts being read today are shown in the graphic. This is not unusual.

Perhaps, it is time to bite the bullet and get back to the nitty gritty. People are looking for that (see the below Aside) as confusion abounds. Why? Where do we have any one working on technology (especially "cloud" oriented stuff) whose motivation is for the betterment of mankind as opposed to filling their pockets?

There will be one change in content, though. God will be mentioned from time to time in this context. Generally, it'll be something like "God only knows" or one of those older adages that said a lot (why? - the argument will start with either/or). Perhaps, even "Insha'Allah " will appear. We will see (know, though, that we will argue beyond this limit - Tegmark quoted).

Aside: The blogger grates at the claim by some that they cannot find technical workers (what I think that they mean is that they want some particular skill - which will become dated - that they want to exploit; too, any presence of "conscience" or looking properly at the larger picture is not needed (as in, suppress such since the powerful have shown that such is antithetical to progress - hah! oh, Lord, help us). There is a brief start of a bio at the bro-blog (FEDaerated, see Note at this page on the chimera).

---

So, today, I re-looked at "Extrapolation, calibration, truth" (30 Dec 2007 - so, eight years ago; remember those times?). Right on. There have been many such posts, here at Tru'eng and at 7oops7, over the years. But, then, like the whole economy, the largess got me off-track (is not Janet backed into a corner?); we'll get back to things that matter.

---

In the meantime, the world has changed quite a bit. A few links will be gathered here which will feature in future posts.

• The Good Judgment Project -  ARPA's support can mean several things. One aspect of "crowd" IQ does revolve around intuition in a collective sense. ... However, in any case, where was this thinking 20 years ago when the WWW was let loose wild and free with ramifications that we are only now being to experience the downside of (how many others detrimental events lurk?)?
• Last year, I played around with Codecademy. It was fun. I did eight of the mini-courses that were available then. I see that others are now there and look to be of interest. Here are some posts about the experience and later work. 
• We would be at fault if big data were not mentioned. So, expect this to be a recurrent theme. 
• ...  

The list is expected to grow as we organize.

Remarks:   Modified: 01/06/2015

01/06/2015 -- Working for other than money? Yes, many (very many can?) do this. ... BTW, this past month, I was in possession, for the first time, of a mobile device that was less than 10" in presentation ability. The endured for about three days. I intend to write about the experience. ... But, all of the attitude that is (has been) displayed by the techies is aerated. Of course, we need behavioral motivators of which hubris counts highly (must it?). So, we have a little more "smarts" in the client which goes against the grain of thinness (which never ought to have happened, anyway) that was a rage for awhile. ... I can see some benefit for a tablet and the smaller companion. It is interesting that MS' Surface is getting some attention by the road warriors. ... So, am I a believer in the Internet of Everything which is, in part, foretold by the mobile things (especially when they are full of sensors and such)? Well, have you looked around and seen all of the security (and other) issues that abound? ... Well, IoT ought to stop, pause, and see what might bolster the basis (by the way, I am available for consulting on such) so that we allow good things to come to fore for our progeny and their's and so on.

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

Threats, real and imagined

There are lots of potential threats that are inherent in our beasties which we have spawned willy-nilly without due consideration of ramifications (beyond, many times, the ability to such money from the pockets of the hapless to that of the fat cats).

Speaking of which (fat cats), it was nice to see a recent WSJ article ("Artificial Intelligence Isn't a Threat -- Yet" Gary Marcus) use "sandboxed" (influences limited in scope) in relation to the absence of "predict or control" within the context of computation (in a sense, we are already out of control). What we have, in essence, is test by trial (as in, luckless users trying to cope - even to the extent of automotive systems streaming out under very lax supervision?).

The issues raised in the article are central to truth engineering's core focus.

Now, about sandbox, it carries too toward those realms of high finance that have been so problematic (and, we will see another downturn - of worse consequences).

Remarks:  Modified: 12/31/2014

12/22/2014 -- 

Analytics

As we said in an earlier post, Big Daddy Data, everyone is hot after analytics. These are framed computationally, you all know, bringing out little gremlins from the tracings that we leave of ourselves. Okay?

Much ado about nothing, to boot. The commercial analytics are the clearest way to perdition, people.

---

So, the other day, in a conversation, on a Sunday, so that gives me the right to be philosophical (actually, I don't need any permission, motivation, or whatever - it's always there), a conversant makes note that it's interesting how I can relate "analytics" (of course, IT milieu) to philosophy. Now, in the guy's favor, I was broaching upon the topic of truth engineering.

Say what? I thought. Then, I said, you know, philosophy was into analysis way before the latest craze which is the result of oodles of years of work by many people all culminating now with idiots misusing knowledge (say it isn't so - MBAs are the worst of the bunch).

---

Earlier, I wrote about algorithms in the context of apps (a big load of stuff to weed through and potentially a big source of errancy - in terms of opening one self up to manipulation). The term is used loosely now. Of course, if it's in the analytics framework, it does have a mathematical basis.

But, and it's a big butt, tell me analytic'ers, what say you about the quasi-empirical (to be discussed) issues? Well, that will be one focus henceforth. Firstly, bring up the topic in this discussion so that there is recognition of its reality. Then, look at the issues and at how they're important to our computational future.

Lord knows that the term was used continuously since the beginning here (44 of 200 posts) and in other blogs (FED-aerated - 25 of 211, 7oops7 - 38 of 248). Mind you, it was my oversight to not go into it further, just as I assumed too much about near-zero's recognition (still need to address that in depth). At least, these topics are sufficiently complicated to keep me busy for awhile.

Remarks:   Modified: 02/10/2014

01/16/2014 -- The recent Communications of the ACM had several stories on big data. Their claim is that the loads of data collected within the past five years or so is a sufficient set to make claims. Well, actually, the idea is to generate predictions, thereby getting a slap on the back from science. However, all sorts of things come to mind which I'll get into. First of all, that parallel universe of data that comes along with internet trafficking and just plain use tells us what? No matter its size, and the duration in which it is collected, the stuff, by no means, describes a person except for some small aspect of themselves. It does not subsume the being. And, even if someone is wrapped by the collection and analysis of this secondary data, it's not real. But, more on this. ... And, mathematics does come into play, misused (ah, the worldview of the MBAs gone mad).

01/16/2014 -- After starting the above example, complications started to lurk that we could ignore for awhile, but, at some point, these would have to be addressed. Say, after a few items were sold by the one who had them first (arbitrary boundary situation, here), those who bought would look at how they could, perhaps, make more than illusory money by selling at a higher price. The value determination then would become some type of functional problem bringing in difficulties that have been long the domain of the mathematicians (the ultimate abstraction'ists, somewhat, but, analytics would be involved). While looking at pedagogic material that would be of interest, I ran across this web site (Intuitive guide to exponential functions). I have not read this yet, but the fact of the amount of comments that have ensued, plus those who commented, got attention. Too, John von Neumann said that we don't understand mathematics (higher-order types); no, we get used to it. However, there must be an intuitive aspect if we are going to appeal to truth and people's place in its determination. So, that usage resonated with my thinking. Too, though, we have a class'ist split that is happening under our noses. In one sense, it relates to numeracy. But, the more insidious part deals with overlays (computationally enhanced) becoming more real than the reality itself (we'll get into that ad infinitum).

02/10/2014 -- Put a comment at this post: brane-space.blogspot.com of-g-o-d-and-god-concepts.html We said that we would raise meta issues (as in, big T), at some point. It's been two years since we had the first of a sibling collection depart.

Truth engineering, revisited

Note (11/18/2022) -- FB, now Meta, is following predictable tracks. We'll be observing and commenting more closely, from outside the monolith, of course. See Remarks, below. Also, the posts that get references in this work will be cleaned up (normal little typos, stale pointers, etc.). 

---

For the past ten years, or so, I've been struggling with how to describe what I see as the need for "truth engineering" as well as look at the operational aspects. I realized, today, that two recent events add some clarification. Firstly, I've been complaining about what Facebook (saying it's a metaphor, but we'll get into what that means) represents, mostly from the position that it grates on years of experiences and that it is an example of power being in the pusher (God grows His own, people) rather than in the user (not a mis-use of the concept; please consider the growing zombie-hood that we see all around).

Aside: some idiot, even had gray hair, almost hit me, a walker, within my legal rights, by the way (as in, not Jayhawking - er jaywalking), as he was coming out of a parking lot, he then slowly accelerated to the street (now, if I did not know better, I would have thought that he was either timid, a new driver, or impaired), as if driving was not the thing to which he was to pay attention, ..., long story short: the arse had his old nose in a mobile device. As we all know, that type of thing is more commonplace than it out to be.

So, in a sense, the zombie attraction deals with truth, or, at least, a popular notion of it. It? Well, like "what is is?" was prominent on the public's mind for awhile, truth has been our problem forever. And, the computational age has drastically changed the matter. That change and how it unfolds needs attention beyond people lining their pockets (there are all sorts of discussion of that in this blog).

---

Now, back to Zuck, he is allowing ideas to be expressed, groups to use his means for their medium, and helping tie disparate milieus. So, thanks, Mr. Zuckerberg. However, sir, you (and your cohorts, to be named) are missing a big piece (which will be explained in time - and greed is not it).

Now, if one looks at all the arguing about truth, we see emotion and dream of Spock (Trek sense, okay) type of people to lead us from ourselves. Science and engineering? Ah, how many ways have those led us to perdition? However, science is now recognizing that emotion is part of rationality (sorry, guys, you have been as emotional as the little women that you berate). Truth's expression to us is about as murky as are our emotions. But, something like a computational platform (don't restrict this to a physical entity, please) can help bring in objectivity (are you listening, NSA?) that can be a boon (gift of God).

But, it is problematic, too. Oh how many ways have we seen this manifest itself of late. Banes galore.

We'll get back to this.

---

On another note, a very emotional arena deals with guns (er, weapons as my drill sergeant - Korea vet, POW- pounded into my teenage'd head). Some want them. Others only want them in the hands of power and control. The Forefathers? What did they think?

You know, the Puritans, those (some anyway) who stripped women to the waist and dragged them through the streets (but, then, whose ancestors were saints?), took guns away from people who didn't sign up for the Church (we'll get back to that and those) or the loyalty oath (to the King, of course, and his minions here). You also know that guns were used for obtaining food and for protection. In the latter sense, they were necessary for the Minutemen to get things rolling, so to speak.

---

Honor,
reflective rather than
reflexive

Those are only two of many subjects, but I wanted to used this photo (thanks Wendy Yost Elliott - requires FB access) as a basis for a long story. My brother died a couple of years ago. He was buried at a National Cemetery in Kansas. He was one of seven boys, so that left six of us. We were all at the ceremony. Then, for various reasons, we ended up doing our own salute using the weapons (see above - albeit these were of a former time). All six of us were veterans and knew how to handle the things. Too, it seemed appropriated at the time. But, truth engineering might show us different opinions on the matter, all rationally framed. We'll get more into this, but for now, and, for the record, the U.S. Service of each, starting at the left: Marines, Army, Marines, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard. All Vietnam era. The honored had served in the U.S. Navy.

Now, the thing is this: how many families could, or would, be able to, do this? There was a mention of the Puritans (others were there, too) since they were an early group involved in the formation of our great nation. In fact, most New Englanders have this ancestry. These six? From a family that is post Civil War. So, therein we might find a juxtaposition that has some basis for framing truth engineering's need to bridge lines, temporal or otherwise.

---

Aside: Written without the usual number of links which will appear within a day or so. In the meantime, there is search (with labels) for browsing.

Aside: In a discussion of the Chromebook (Toshiba's - we'll do a post on this), some one took exception to their using the Pawn guys to talk about the pros and cons. The statement was that an 80-year old wouldn't know. Well, I've been in advanced computing for a long time (longer than the life of the commenter, no doubt). And, I'm only nine years from 80. And, when I look at Chrome (C++) and Linux (Unix as the motivator) and more, I see things that I've dealt with way before they were known to a broader group (namely, those spawning off apps willy-nilly - in the hopes, probably of finding the killer one). So, I expect, given health continues, that I could talk this stuff at 80. The problem, young folk? Try talking to someone like me (who may have some insights that would apply to you - yeah, Zuck, Google), but, you would have to do it in other than the mode of maximizing the monetary aspects (sheesh, I would drag you down to the truth - actually, in some cases, let me lift your sight). Be that as it may, I'll continue to map out what is essentially a core issue to resolve if we are to continue sustainable'ly (yes, we'll make up words as we go along - ain't English grand for that).

Remarks:   Modified: 11/18/2022

01/08/2014 --  This has a GEK III label since George was one mentor (peer to peer) that I encountered along the way. 

01/11/2014 -- We'll close this and get on to some technical preliminaries. For one, the Twit limit of 140 characters seems to have taken over, even in discussions. When you think of it, that's not all bad when applied to the verbiage produced by some. But, on a more positive note, looking at a discussion where these limits apply, one could think of a poetic metaphor. However, in-length exposition is still needed for clarity and depth. The character-reduced is more a Rorschach prompt where we can fill in the spaces as we see fit. Now, in-length, above, ought to be considered to be like we see with a theorem (or a program, in which all logic is exposed and not encapsulated (which was a big step forward) via abstraction).

02/08/2014 -- The event of the photo was a burial rite, military style, for Clement Thomas Switlik, Jr. who died on 02/09/2012, two months after Hitchens.

02/09/2014 -- Two years (02/09/2012), more on Truth Engineering (and, the hombres).

08/03/2015 -- George as inspiration of computing and existentialism.

11/17/2022 -- See Quora, Psychether for a discussion that will use these concepts as point-in-time observations. 

Baruch

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

--

Or, later known as Benedict. Spinoza, of course.

Why is he important? As we see neuroscience trying to explain ourselves to us, we can learn from all of the debates over the many years. And, Baruch had a lot to say that is worth considering. His time, by the way, parallels the first entry on this side of the pond that led to the US (to wit, real founders).

I recently saw a reference to a 2003 book on FB which sent me back to my youth (Henry and George) due to its theme being related to Baruch's thoughts. Antonio Damasio, the author, uses our friend (see Stanford's summary of Spinoza's on the physical world) as the basis for arguing the importance of emotions to our cognitive workings. And, that leads right to truth engineering and to the issues related to computation (we'll get there).

---

Aside: Emotions? Well, we have a lot to discuss there. Let's just say that these are involved with mechanisms (operational sense, okay? in terms, too, of the neuropeptidergic'al consciousness (is that all there is?)) that cannot be mechanized (which computation is, folk). What, even with biologically based computers?

Aside: We saw a similar view in the last IJCAI (International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence) arguing that biased minds make better inferences (see video on Homo heuristicus). You have to realize that this might seem quite intuitive, yet reasoning (as in applied logics of several sorts) does receive most attention. The Zen awaits further definition.

Aside: That the mathematical framework, so perniciously overlaying ourselves, is right at the core of the current financial mess (still being unwound, folks). A big problem remains with respect to ensuring payments (by that, insure is not in any way meant to imply the gaming by the likes of AIG - or even some pieces of Buffet's organizations - many of the strategies involved stink to high heaven) in the future.

---

We've danced around some necessary points by categorizing them as t-issues and punting them down the road (isn't this what we've done with the national debt?). It might be interesting to re-look at the topic with Baruch's glasses (as in, truth and the senses).

Now, some might complain that thoughts from 400 years ago are not of interest. These arguments have been timelessly debated, not converging, apparently, to anything that would build consensus. As well, the modern world has been very much rewarding of the operational stances. Namely, these are those that do not care with the net effect of turmoils, trampling of the spirit, and much more as a guaranteed fact of life. Perhaps, this might be true for some.

For me, it's nice to run across thoughtful recognition of the musing of earlier thinkers in the context of the up-to-date work that, essentially, is spiraling us toward knowing more and more about less and less in this age of specialization. Too, to have a balanced view like Baruch's brought forward can have several effects; one of these would be an improved overarching worldview. How? We'll get to that.

Finally, a Baruch thought, via SEoP: For measure, both of spatial extent and temporal duration, is a mere aid to the imagination, and not a means of intellectually understanding.

Remarks:

07/09/2013 -- Was there a time when father knew, whether all or most of the time? Many sons railed against that, GEK III, for instance. Some sons had absent fathers, who were no more than some ideal without any material substance. Some sons even followed their fathers. All sorts of positions along an axis. However, there is something new, now. An insidious overlay is threatening us; its origins come from advances in prowess that are less understood than those who practice think is so. Have we left serfdom to a feudal lord behind in order to be wrapped in a more dense veil? The key notion is quasi-empicisism and its being ignored.

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

Modified: 01/06/2015

It is or it is not

I would have used 'tis and tain't but for the taint that might come forth. So, what is this about? Well, we're going to look at issues raised by a growing set of people, such as the late Christopher Hitchens. You see, this type of discussion is central to truth engineering, especially as it relates to T-issues.

--

As well, we see both sides of the arguments claiming to know. On the one side, it's phrased in terms of having fact at hand (to wit, discussions at the Dawkins site), as we expect with science (except, evidence has become increasingly wrapped within computational/mathematical modeling that requires us to put into place the necessary filters/lens, etc. -- recursive issues) as it has evolved in the past few centuries. On the other side, there are statements about material obtained via various types of means, with revelation (whole slew of sacred literature) being one of these.

So, it's like a fence for the reasonable folks. There are two sides, yet one may (ought to be allowed to) waffle on both sides (actually, operational effectiveness may require us to do just that). Too, nuances come into play on both sides. All of this is relevant to the discourse, however we are using an 'engineering' ontology, so that means the following assignment.

• It is not -- argues this: any claims that might have theistic leanings are basically bonkers, as in delusional (look it up on Google). We can wrap ourselves in the Mystery (see Krauss, et al) or Evolution (see Dawkins) or ... 
• It is -- the converse, in a sense: there is a whole lot to look at here as this is an age-old issue. From our viewpoint, though, we'll just say that there exists a meme (or set of memes) that follow Anselm's argument of the ontological nature. Or, in other words, we have times when something outside of the human limits (mind you, only offering the use of a symmetric entity to which we can project) has a role to play in our decision processes. For now, the use of  'meme' means that we can draw benefits (potentially quite remarkable -- hence, the motivation) without taking the discussion to the nth degree (that cannot currently be resolved for many folks - okay?).  

Before we proceed, there needs to be a statement of a disclosure nature. That is, on which side is the blogger? Well, it may be that using 'It is not' as the basis for argument may imply something about that. But, then, again, that question will remain unanswered, for now, in an attempt to be balanced. 

---

Now, again, one might ask if an a-theist (some say, the 'It is not' side) can claim to be scientific (and that might imply a position on the part of the blogger). You know, science does not provide answers in an ultimate sense. There is always a provisional platform that grows in size. Too, that increase in size does not diminish what is not known (at least, from the viewpoint of the less strident mind). If science cannot at this time disprove the meme (or its metaphysical analog), how can one claim to make the decision via science? 

---

On the other hand, if one were to argue for the 'It is' claim, why does it have to take the ultimate leap to describing what exactly is being labelled? You see, the meme would be an operational flavor; nowhere within the context of its use would there be any requirement to subsume the essence (that which is labelled) within some limited sensibility. Look, if science has increasing boundaries, so too will this argument.  

---

Okay, we'll be going back and forth on this. Mind you, the meme mentioned above is a type of closure. As a joke, one could say it deals with compactification (use any sense that you want). Yet, the issue is that we have to assume closure, in many cases, since we have undecidable regions (in both time and space) lurking. You know, we do that anyway with our common sense. Lots of times, it works. 

With computational complexity being a core issue with 'truth' (only one of many other things, so don't leap too far in trying to extract implications here), we cannot use the 'omniscience' approach (though, one wonders how the 'It is not' side is going to look at this -- we'll look at this later) that seems to underlie some notions (those who ponder such things do not know how we can know the truth behind any modern situation with having our arms around the whole thing -- oh yes, some have taken mathematics as the basis meanwhile ignoring quasi-empirical issues). I say 'underlies' as it seems to be that we have a basis moving about down there. Truthfully? Many seem to just jump right over the matter; my hope is to show that they're straddling the fence when they do so.

That brings up the first requirement. Show that there is a fence. At the same time, discuss the symmetry related to this fence's dynamics.

---

How long will this take? Why would there be a rush? Mankind has fought over these matters for thousands of years. My interest is trying to set a framework that will allow increased insights (as well, will provide for some interesting discussions and experiments).

Remarks:

01/22/2013 -- The site referenced in a below Remark took down my comment about dreaming of Hitch (ah, can't believe that he's in heaven?). Yeah. So, here it is: Hitch (in one, he was scrunched in a public place (as if not wanting to recognize the new reality tht flowed around him), as I walked by him, he grabbed my notebook (as in EOJ material), and started to browse it; later, he and my college roommate visited me at my desk talking about a new school that they were involved in -- perhaps Hitch saw the peripatetic need, at the same time, Hitch sized me up, and I showed him the writing on the wall which is there for all to see, after they left, my whole work area went through some type of transformation, I had met several people there after they went to the wider expanse).

05/30/2012 -- See dreams of Hitch comments at the It is or it is not post. These were written at the Daily Hitchens site (and deleted). They'll be re-posted here at some point. Recent Krauss tribute.

05/04/2012 -- Alan's 100th. We need to look at Computability in the World.

03/29/2012 -- Interesting video on self-transcendence. Pay attention to the last three minutes.

01/31/2012 -- Blind or delusional.

01/15/2012 -- Jobs, labor, and disrespect.

01/15/2012 --  Hitch lives on. In more ways than one. ..., One might say that this is the middle way (variously characterized throughout our history on the planet). From the viewpoint of product development, middle out is the only way that finds success.

Modified: 01/22/2013

Christopher Hitchens

R.I.P. (in the many senses -- at some point, will bring forth truth issues, both small 't' and large 'T' -- paraphrasing one comment, he launched avalanches of words/concepts that disallowed precision of a measurable sort)

Also, am trying to maintain a prayerful, and respectful, mindset (never got a chance to discuss my points with him) while traversing his broadly ranging work.

The guy was so right on so many things. What a viewpoint! To wit: When the King saved God. Many burned, on the several sides, of this issue.

He came over here, like all of the others. It's been 400+ years now. And, we still have so much to learn. 

Remarks:

10/01/2015 -- His Ten Commandments.

01/22/2013 -- T-issues will migrate to issues of science and religion. -- The site referenced in a below Remark took down my comment about dreaming of Hitch (ah, can't believe that he's in heaven?). Yeah. So, here it is: Hitch (in one, he was scrunched in a public place (as if not wanting to recognize the new reality tht flowed around him), as I walked by him, he grabbed my notebook (as in EOJ material), and started to browse it; later, he and my college roommate visited me at my desk talking about a new school that they were involved in -- perhaps Hitch saw the peripatetic need, at the same time, Hitch sized me up, and I showed him the writing on the wall which is there for all to see, after they left, my whole work area went through some type of transformation, I had met several people there after they went to the wider expanse).

05/30/2012 -- See dreams of Hitch comments at the It is or it is not post. These were written at the Daily Hitchens site (and deleted). They'll be re-posted here at some point. Recent Krauss tribute. Nice. Hitch was a lot of things: he comprehended beyond the ability of most; he thought that our knowledge ought to enhance our awareness of being alive, in all of the meanings. Krauss asks, what would Christopher do? Support Dawkins, we might say. Because Hitch was, we'll use him as a focal point for arguing T-issues.

05/03/2012 -- We'll start a 'meme' discussion, Either / Or. 

03/29/2012 -- Interesting video on self-transcendence. Pay attention to the last three minutes.

01/31/2012 -- Blind or delusional.

01/25/2012 -- Margaret Kimberley's take (quoted several places: example).

01/19/2012 -- Notice the comment of someone dreaming of Hitch's state (this can raise a whole lot of discussion, eventually). Just ran across this debate, in 2008, between Christopher and his younger brother, Peter, at Grand Valley State University. Interesting.

01/15/2012 -- Hitch motivates a series: It is or It is not. Hitch lives on. In more ways than one.

01/13/2012 -- Thinking about Hitch, and the wide-range of topics with which he was involved, will motivate several themes this year. Here is the first one (see the Aside -- to be expanded). Now, coming here will be a discussion of Tis (as in, it is so) and Taint (as in, it ain't so). Guess which will be assigned to which side of the argument? Some would say, and so it is (the operational stance that moves its definitions along as it learns -- you know, the business leaders (yes, Jamie, you and your ilk) think that they're smart for learning how to broaden their pockets and how to increase the flow into such -- world-class jerks, actually).

01/02/2012 -- We'll look at what might be an oxymoron (or almost so, as a whole lot of discussion will ensue about this): atheistic scientist. There are two words here of various meanings. The former denotes a position on a question that may very well be unanswerable; yet, one does have a right to conjecture that God is a man-made creation (ah, creationist thinking?). So, it would be a working hypothesis. Now, unanswerable? Yes, in the terms of falsifiable-ness, cannot be phrased publicly sufficiently to allow tests (and, as in, don't fall for all the contentions about 'literalness'  as being necessary to resolve the thing personally). The latter term ought to have connotations dealing with testable-ness, repeatable-ness, and much more. Too, a moving platform, albeit with a more firm basis in the future from current work, hopefully. To an end? Ah, just as we see no end to the horizon, why ought we see some limit to that which is (may be) unanswerable? Call it what you will. Your recognition of such, nor whatever name you apply, really has no effect whatsoever, except in a limited sense. As, the hubris of the atheist is (can be) as much of an issue as is the idiocy of the fundamentalist. Remember, our states of knowledge are becoming increasingly wrapped within our lens, filters, and what have you; do not all of these have their foundations in mathematics (quasi-empiricism) and our prowess at material manipulations (uncertainty, et al)? By the way, consider that that which is unanswerable (and unknown) may very well have an 'echo' feature which we can understand, and use for our (collective) benefits. Granted the signal may come from our conscious being (oh yes, we'll have to consider essence as opposed to property), yet from whence that?

12/22/2011 -- Remembering, Christopher, at the clear-thinking oasis.

12/20/2011 -- Apropos quote from Paul Wallace: Both the closed-hearted scientism of atheist hardliners and the narrow creationism of religious fundamentalists kill our strange and beautiful world by flattening it beyond repair.

12/17/2011 -- Mocker meets the Mockee, one might say. That theme would offer much to discuss. We'll collect the several of these that Christopher's views might have brought to the fore. Too, as a focal point, the t-issues become very interesting. Perhaps, Hitchens was an angel in disguise.

12/17/2011 -- Our import underwent, and remarked on, the barbarism of waterboarding; power needs its carvers.

Modified: 10/01/2015

Motivations

Though t-issues are important to the discussion, these are for the most part of little-t type. From time to time, there can be big 'T' issues brought in, such as this one or that one. It is of interest that both deal with things economic.

Are there big-T issues in engineering? Or, are they just easier to avoid?

Well, we can re-look at why truth engineering in this context. System thinking is a late attribute of enlightenment quest that we can trace over 100s of years. How all this came about can be avoided, skirting several big-T topics.

Yet, the basic theme is that systems relate to problem solving (oops minimization). Computational efforts then followed, and, for a long while, the computer was the human brain with some artifacts involved. Applied mathematics, and resolving systems of equations, was the focus of a lot of energy by very smart people.

We have to acknowledge their stamina, to boot. Some types of problems, that nowadays take the blink of an eye on a modern computational device, took years for people to work. One just has to marvel at the initiative, work ethic, and management skills in terms of tracking all of the details.

As our prowess increased, that which did the work became more artificially based. We're almost to the point that if the computer is not used in some professional situations things may be bordering on mal-practice.

Yet, just as we have underdetermination at the core of our knowledge, the real core of computing is undecidable. Wait! Yes. If we acknowledge that the basic circuitry is for the most part decidable, we can feel better. However, folks, progress has place real-time switching there that can be very problematic.

In fact, one worry ought to be that malfeasance-motivated mischief is not embedded. The US DOD takes this seriously.

But, we'll get back to that. Even if the switching was very stable, what we build upon the framework, layer by layer, introduces back the problematic issues real quick. Then, when we look at the growing presence (ubiquity), it can become very much troublesome.

Now, recognition of that is the motivation of the proposal that truth engineering is essential. Yes, it is necessary that computation be involved and that the majority of the work is being done by some artifact, but is that not the case and is not that expected to continue to grow?

Remarks:

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

12/17/2010 -- An interesting topic may have presented itself for further study in this regard.

Modified: 01/22/2013

Truth derivatives

The Newsday of New York had an interesting cartoon which was reproduced in USA Today (4/23/2010).

It struck a chord with the intent of this blog for several reasons. For one, a strict definition for 'truth engineering' has been hard to pin down. The related discourse would involve many topics, as we have seen. Some of the concepts, and reactions, that might come about seem to be motivated from a cynical framework.

But, that is not necessary, as the topic is legit and of concern for several reasons that we expect to address. For one, we need to deal with underdetermined situational dilemmas in a fashion that can be, at best, quasi-empirical. In a perfect world, we would all learn together. Unfortunately, what we find is that 'trust' has lost its value in our world.

Denial of belief systems notwithstanding, something similar is the operational position in any modern realm, especially those involving complex systems. Politicians, and others, exploit the the belief urge.

So, we ought to, for argument, turn around the little phrase and use 'derivation of truth' and discuss how it is one of the most important issues we face. How do we know this, and what can we do? Upon what first principles do we start? ... Ah, a supposedly endless set of questions might abound.

But, the lessons from Russell apply here. Even Grasso caught this. When computers come to the playground, dynamics change. Our noses cannot smell the crap, as easily, though I'll argue that we can have virtual counterparts of all the senses, including the 6th.

We'll be covering, in more depth, the need of a person-in-the-loop for most complicated schemes. Why? Vertigo of systems is one of the perpetual problems that has been ignored; it is, in a sense, one main source of systemic risk.

Thank you, Mr. Handelsman.

By the way, the finance folks use derivatives to denote that something comes from another. One might say that the 'derivative' deals with some abstract property which may be recursively far removed from anything real.

In short, it's a bastardization of mathematical notions, chiefly those which are at the core of differential topology. It would never have seen the light of day without computation. The 'abstract' nature gave it some credence; that there were functional uses allowed the advent to the point that we saw.

Some used these abstractions to build a house of cards. Even if the underlying entities, those things far removed from the derivative, were rock solid, this type of thing would have been problematic, eventually. Why? The underlying games are unstable.

Actually, it was lucky for us that greed, and other human traits, exacerbated the problem. Otherwise, we may have been further down a perdition-laden path with even worse consequences and much more pain. Wait! Some feel that this is exactly the situation that we currently face due to the lack of backbone to handle moral hazards.

Will we learn from this most recent financial debacle? Well, finance (as in the profs who think that financial engineering is something to pursue), you tell me.

Remarks:

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

11/04/2011 -- The government, and politicians, lie?

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

05/10/2010 -- Makes one wonder if 'beyond reproach' means anything anymore. Those in charge, for the most part, seem to be after their own glory and welfare. Who is really looking out for all of us? Oh? Just who is all of us? You see, those with the aptitude, many times, can be 'John Galts' and entrap and enslave many without any constraint. But, as we know, aptitude is not enough; there has to be ways and means. Trouble is the government, business, and computation provide such.

Ah. This country started a clock anew about 400 years ago (yes, those early comers had many dreams and, in many cases, were fleeing tyranny) but, for reasons worth looking at, we've essentially reproduced the same thing. Yes. We have 'royalty' and 'peerage' except that 'fiat' thing, called money, is the main consistency of power. Hence, all of this gaming and confusion.

Big Ben could help by remembering that anyone who takes a position involving public trust needs put their own financial affairs into some kind of independent trust such that any link between actions and personal gain is reduced. How can we do that? They have families to take care of. Good question. Big Ben talked that money isn't the main ingredient of 'happiness' this weekend. Yet, the 'funny' money is principally his to manipulate.

Something amiss here? Look, Big Ben, get to the real issue: we have to look at the philosophical (mainly, metaphysical) issues related to money. Are you prepared to address that?

Modified: 01/22/2013

Paul as CEO

Yes, Paul as in the Letters to the Corinthians. See One World, Under God.

Interesting secular take. My first thought was this: how unlike the CEOs of now, celestial stars that they are (in their own eyes manifesting, almost, a perpetual right-of-kings attitude - the Board, of course, as the bestower, thereof).

Then, the thoughts touched on subjects, like globalization, the consumer, labor, et al, as things have been screwed up by these celestials and their ilk, like the latter day variety that wants big pay (for what?).

Following that, and not needing t-issues yet in the scope, thoughts consider that we can look at the current state of the affairs in relation to the time of Paul, via the referenced article.

Briefly, Paul had imperial aspirations, like any CEO, yet his were not based upon needs for aggrandizement or vulgar collections of wealth. Nor, was it to exploit resources according to some doctrine of optimization which, by definition, is sub-optimal for us all, for several reasons.

Paul also had a greater purpose which a modern CEO could argue is outside of his or her scope. Yet, when one looks at the screwed up nature of things, and this is much more than the mere hiccups that we saw with the financial idiots this past year, where is any viewpoint that transcends the silliness?

The mention here, a time or two, that we need 'monks' to run things ought to have some appeal. But, wait! We could start, too, with some mature discussion about term limits. Who the heck needs 'professional' career politicians?

Solve that, and the issue of managers could follow, by law. By the way, see Fallows (same issue): Two years ago, ..., I described an economic symbiosis in which Chinese workers assembled many of the world’s products—while ... America or other rich countries got the lion’s share of the financial returns. It is the announced policy of the Chinese government, and of many Chinese companies, to keep more of the rewards in China. ... Outsiders can rightly criticize the Chinese government ... no one can criticize its ambition to increase the rewards for its people’s work.

Remarks:

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

10/12/2011 -- The people's heart.

12/15/2009 -- Originally post on 12/9/2009.

Modified: 01/22/2013

Truth and toil

Yes, as the title suggests, we're going to consider people issues again, in particular the working class. Earlier posts looked at talkers and doers, lords and serfs, and labor and laborers.

The trouble is that busyness has adopted a view of workers as commodity. Unfortunately, the world rewarded this view with a seemingly endless supply of cheap labor. And, those views grew somewhat stronger despite the longer-term issues of sustainability.

A related fact is that there are many of the able-bodied who have never labored (pity the poor souls) at anything. As I've said before, that could be cured by some type of national service that is mandatory. Jaron Lanier wanted to know if we would have intellectuals out in the field working with their hands as automatons took over.

Well, it may be well to be aware that some who work with their hands may actually be smarter than the best-and-brightest. Fat-cat-ness is sometimes like the rising flotsam in the effluent of life.

Many times, we have the fat cats, and some intellectuals, thinking that they're another class, read better. And, what's irritating is the notion that those who use their minds actually work harder than they do. You see, there is no CEO who expends more energy or exhausts bodily health (except, perhaps, in playing the back-slapping game and posturing - I know, isn't it so exhausting psychically) than those of their workers who face danger, wear themselves out physically, and such.

And, being in hock, in a growing fashion, to those who are allowed to entrap one financially is the worse fate. Some employers create indentured servants and even try to carry it forward to their workers' progeny. Oh wait, aren't we now impoverishing our future generations? Also, some bankers are the scourge (see Class Acts) in a sense; at least the pay-day loan people are up front about their snares and traps.

So, it is in the touch where we find the reality notwithstanding the urge for lights-out and hands-off. And, without a decent income, how can we expect to sustain the consumer part of the economy. Oh yes, let your machines play the consumer (there are those who do see that as a possible alternative, with robots in charge of the world).

Yesterday, the President talked to the union heads. Now, the trouble there is that, in many cases, those heads do not really represent those who are doing the toiling; no, union leadership becomes a type of career. Actually, in the worst case, union leadership was seen as the opportunity to exploit the worker. Ought union leadership be a service? Hey wait, should not those elected be representative rather than career-ive? Yes, you guys and gals, Senators and Representatives both, your role is service believe it or not.

Oh yes, we must not forget the finance guys! Hey, how about a type of world where your role would be service, too? Ah, how else can we break you away from your casino capitalism (gaming)? And, the leeching (circulatory system metaphor).

In my recent reading about quants, two views become apparent. There is the set that games in order to fatten the cats further. There is the more enlightened set that would like to make the modeling to be more scientifically oriented. Gosh, think of that? Economics being less of its usual dismal self?

Note: As said before, I dealt with quantitative methods. There was some magic as managers (and other clueless) were dumbfounded at some of our results; yet, we didn't have the direct link of ka-ching (whatever) of the Wall Street hit dumping oodles of money into the pockets of a few. By the way, this is how our magic was repaid: subsequent iterations were expected to produce what was only accomplished by very hard work (more than any CEO could sustain), by proper use of insight, good engineering, and, essentially, resolving intractable issues. Yet, the managers wanted a repeat, with a snap of the fingers. Perhaps, my agreement with the Vienna boys and girls about undecidability is from long observations on how actual accomplishment with computers comes about. Too, we were being quantitative in metric spaces that required high degrees of accuracy since we were going up against nature. Gaming can be metric, but it is very loose, comparatively. My hunch is that the quants are in-between. They deal in something that can weigh down a pocket, yet they have no notion of the reality of near-zero nor can they actually measure as much as their theoretical views seem to indicate.

Remarks:

05/09/2011 -- Doers, reconsidered.

01/07/2011 -- A whole lot of water under the bridge with enough backflow to, perhaps, learn something.

10/02/2010 -- Ideological problems of capitalism, indeed: classism

12/08/2009 -- Consider Paul and current CEOs.

Modified: 05/09/2011

Homo economicus

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

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

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

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

Remarks:

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

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

01/01/2011 -- Paul as CEO.

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

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

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

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

02/09/2013

T Issue

Big 't' truth issues have not found much use in the western way of economics what with the gaming influence and push for greed. Not that greed isn't a human trait found everywhere. However, there might be some benefit from our looking at the Islamic take on economics and being cognizant of the associated worldview.

M Ledeen (WSJ Opinion, 2/9/09) talks about Iran's recent satellite launch in the context of the Mahdi's return which, for Christians, is analogous to Christ's return. Iran can be of central concern to our discussions here.

That Economics has a larger role will be consider here, even if it's from small 't' view. From time to time, we will bring in the larger scopes.

Remarks:

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

06/20/2009 -- The Economist reports on an attempt to build a "truly global Islamic bank."

04/29/2009 -- For more on the Mahdi and Ahmadinejad, see the New Yorker (Can Iran Change?).

Modified: 01/22/2013

Truth and all

There are many sides to truth which can prove to be troublesome in various situations.

Past truth is definitely different from future truth, as we might learn in some of cases. That is, much of now is a replay of before, yet how many times do we get into situations that were supposedly just a simple matter but things got complicated?

We will point to several of these, including the Boeing 787 which is now planned to fly in the second quarter of 2009 and be delivered in the first quarter of 2010. This latest round of estimates follows several which we'll itemize.

Can the plane go through its truth check, which is essentially what the flight test period stands for, in the short time that is now planned? Well, opinions differ. You know what? Those opinions don't amount to a hill of beans, usually.

Why? Well, with something real, like the plane, it has to actually work in a real setting. Now, we can evaluate whether it passed the tests in an ex post facto sense, but we cannot say that it will do so in a forward sense.

Boeing knows this as it has caveats posted about not having 20-20 foresight. Who does? The issue is whether we ought to continue to have the game where the future is predicted, then we all sit around and determine how close the prediction was?

Oh, wait!! That is what science claims for itself, does it not? But, is business and program management a matter of science? Well, that depends upon to whom you talk. Being frank, I'll say no.

What it is, and folks just look at the golden boys of the Street to see what I am talking about (did we not have to bail them out? And 'it is' means business playing like it's a science), is silly misuse of mathematics and computation.

No amount of computer modeling can stand in for nature or the real world. We'll always be getting back to that. Boeing ought to already know that risk management failed so far, in the large that is. No doubt, there are points where the plan worked. Some might say Spirit, except it's just a little Boeing, in a sense.

So, this plane is only one of several 'models' that we'll need to look at as we talk about why truth engineering is a necessary part of the future landscape, virtual and otherwise.

Remarks:

12/13/2008 -- Just when the financial matters looked to be under control.

Modified: 12/13/2008

Islamic Finance

As we watch things unravel due to influences, such as leveraging and gaming, and observe discussions about how to get stable, we might consider that the big 'T' issues might bear some of our attention, at some point.

In the meantime, we might learn something from Islamic Law which does deal with banking (and finance). Speculation is verboten as is usury.

Business Week (11/24/08) wondered if "Islamic Finance may be on to something." But, the focus of the article was on how Islamic banks fared in the current situation of toxic debt. Well, "excessive debt" is not allowed.

One has to wonder how the western mind came up with the notion that leveraging was creative. Clever it may be; yet, stupid is another way to characterize the propensity to gamble away one's future.

Sharia-based methods do not mean not-modern, witness the debit-card offered by Mastercard that is compliant.

By the way, search at Business Week on 'Islamic Finance' and read more, if you are interested.

The current set of oops that is due to mis-cues, poor thinking, mathematical-malfeasance, greed, etc., cannot be other than a lesson on how not to do it. We do know how.

Remarks:

11/21/15 -- Why-does-the-Islamic-banking-system-not-charge-interest-on-loans-and-advances-What-are-their-alternative-sources-of-revenue?

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

06/20/2009 -- The Economist reports on an attempt to build a "truly global Islamic bank."

02/03/2009 -- It would do well to consider how the Islamic culture can add to the capitalism/socialism debates. One start might be to read about Islamic Economics, such as this insightful look at command versus free enterprise, albeit with other influences at hand.

01/18/2009 - We even need to look at why we need finance.

12/18/2008 -- Leveraging, in and of itself, is not bad.

12/01/2008 -- AME Info asks: Are Islamic banks the financial institutions of the future? There are two attributes of importance, elsewhere covered in these posts: asset-based system, closer to the real economy. The former pertains to the leveraging issue, in part. The latter has to do with the abstraction-phile leanings of the western mind as well as the fictional flavorings.

Modified: 11/21/2015

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.

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

Our daily bread

All sorts of thoughts and discussion could occur under this topic. For one, in light of the season, one could think about 'daily bread' as a gift. That is, even if one works, the 'bread' that one earns to buy one's bread depends upon, in part, the largess of the one for whom one works. Do not managers always tell workers that their job is a gift (subject to withdrawal and outsourcing, we need to acknowledge that we have a 'gift economy' as far as jobs are concerned - with fingers still being ground to the bone, to boot, though)? Of course, we all know the babe and others, who may be incapacitated, cannot work.

For a bit, let's use 'bread' for that which flows in the economy that has several purposes; one of these uses is obtaining that which nourishes the body; also, we're using 'bread' for the thing that cannot buy you love (apologies to J,P,R,G - not necessarily in that order).

Therefore, the gift of bread is not an uncommon occurrence. We ought not even consider too much that those with too much bread might be problematic from several viewpoints (these are large T issues). This would lead to thinking about the relative amounts of bread that different folks may have.

For instance, the daily bread of some (a very few) is in the 100,000s (perhaps, even in the millions). Others may have cents (in the US currency sense - see IMF rating for Liberia) daily. Others are without - if not zero bread, approaching that.

The largest set has some dollars (10s and 100s) in their daily bread; we'll look at those ranges.

First, though, some words about motivation. In other areas, focus is on an OEM program that has an unbounded set of interesting issues. Guess what? Many of those involve bread, from all sorts of angles. Too (or second, if we were counting), bread has become a measure and goal in itself (see earlier post on If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?). As well (...), people who are past their prime need some set of bread whose cardinality depends upon a number of factors (see The Number book, etc.); yet, for many their set was pilfered in many cases; or, if still intact, the set is of uncertain value (many senses here).

Taking that last example, thinking of 'daily bread' is far better for thinking of retirement bread-needs than some extrapolation on current earnings. Why? Well, it maps well to expenditures which is a better basis for starting the proper analysis (and, we're not talking zero-based budgeting so much - rather, that gradients at this level have a whole lot of meaning). Of course, then one could categorize bread (in better ways than we've seen).

You see, those with too much bread usually do not have sufficient respect for it for several reasons (which we can go into eventually); if they do, they are the exception; having a good feel for all the issues involved is not an abstraction thing required for handling large oodles (not googles); rather, it has to do with the function of bread as it maps to what-the-bread-buys is for (see post on 7'oops7 in regard to the abstract and the function in terms of how we need to deal with complications and difficulties - relating to number one, above).

These types of posts may lead to another blog; for now, an engineering economist part of the mind will be ruminating about some strange characteristics about the world, many of which have come out of the woodwork in the past 30 years.

You see, with an emphasis on youth, where does the sense of arms-around-time come from? It cannot, despite the amount of brilliance (which we see grows by time - see IQ and PIQ).

Guess what? Any supplier just starting is like a youth in many cases; yet, we can probably clone out (in a sense like horticultural grafting) pieces of an organization where they are not starting from ground zero (perhaps, that is how the Wichita outgrowth from Boeing ought to be characterized).

Finally, we've developed a culture of youth, as if the young minds who are coming out of their academic experience or who are being let loose to fly freely due to a seemingly better intuitive grasp of things virtual and computational or who are just starting their efforts without the baggages that can accumulate through time are the key; in some types of realms this is called green field.

Well, let's look at it this way, as discussion of the phenomena behind that youth thrust will be important, nature revitalizes every spring; is that necessarily a new generation for all types in nature? Of course not.

Well, we know that bread is not sufficient, but it can be a starting point for building a model with better functional support for what needs to be done than what we've seen the past few decades.

No mention of bread and what it buys would be complete without a nod to Maslow.

Remarks:

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

11/04/2010 -- Big Ben is still putting us at risk and trashing the savers.

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

06/17/2009 -- A fresh look will be needed.

01/19/2009 - We need to remember that people matter more than finance.

11/20/2008 -- Boon and bust, the way of fairy dust.

11/12/2008 -- Well, things feel apart fairly quickly, starting in September of 2008. By N0vember, there was general spooking. Starting in September, movements toward nationalization sped so fast that it was easy to forget that a Republican administration was still in the White House. Talk about rewarding hubris and moral hazardness!!!!

08/01/2008 -- It's not enough to rant and spout off. So, let's start something constructive by looking at money and what it is.

06/01/08 -- Humans like to play with their bread, we know. Yet, maturity is accompanied with an appreciation for the values of hedging (see Minsky). At some point, we get to more speculative thinking, yet that too ought to have some constraints which we have seen evolve into risk management schemes. The question then comes up, how do we keep out the froth (that is, the inevitable Ponzi-ness)?

Well, folks, the WSJ had an op-ed on 5/30/08 dealing with the Feds actions this past spring in which they opened up the discount window to investment banks among other things.

In other words, we the taxpayers are being allowed the tremendous opportunity of putting our bread behind what might essentially be junk. You see, 'leverage' is no longer suspect. No, leverage yourself to the hilt; expect that Ben and crew will bail you out. Oh, if only this were so for the rest of us!

So, speculation's access to our bread ought to be seriously constrained. Ponzi-ness? Well, perhaps only some minor percentage that is considered gaming and entertainment would be allowed.

So, we'll have to look at intrinsics and more.

01/18/08 -- Reinventing the wheel seems to be a continually present phenomenon in the work world despite several issues. For instance, each reinventing sets back to zero the 'truth' clock. Science does not allow proof via an infinite collection (that is, no large set of successes guarantees continuance thereof), yet that is no argument to throw out what is working in order to try something new whose value has to be proven through time.

Modified: 11/21/2010