Weakness in modern pure mathematics

Several posts, of late, have talked about the need for a re-look at technical issues. This will continue in a, hopefully, coherent fashion with measurable effectiveness (being cheeky).

• Truth Engineering -- Renew, 5 years, Myth 
• 7'oops7 --  Relativistics
• FEDaerated --  LIBOR, a big fudge?

All along, there has been a suggestion here that things are awry because of foundation'al issues. And, this is because of more than the concerns about quasi-empiricism. These issues go way back.

---

There is a chain, folks, that can explain (partly) the source of the problem. Dawkins, in fact, has used the argument. In the sense of science, let's put it this way (paraphrase) -- the biologist talks to the physicist (and chemist), the physicist talks to the mathematician, and to whom talks the mathematician? God. The adage is age-old but worthy of attention.

Aside: What goes along with this is that only some of a cohort set are the ones worthy (of value) enough to push back the horizon. This was fine when things were 'pure' and simple-minded (yes, people, the classic joke of the unaware thinker -- do we really need that?). But, given those considered worthy (yet, they have feet of clay as do the rest) a computer and the web and watch out (yes, people, the crap that we see now is of this ilk -- how did reasoning, smart folks allow such a bad state to develop? - Harvard isn't off the hook - yet, as said before, the theory of multiple intelligence comes from that institution -- so, numeracy (as in, applications of mathematics -- all types) is not the epitome (STEM, a misdirection, of sorts) by any means -- well-rounded-ness? ever heard of that?).

---

Aside: In several posts, there may be use of undecidability and quasi-empirical in the context of computational issues of note. The discussion of this topic will continue under the context of Computability in all of the related blogs.

---

So, the quakings that we see (covered in postings) do deal with mathematics, with those who do it, and with its applications. We will continue to go on about that as the growing computational frameworks are troublesome in very many ways. As I've said, there is no timeline that I'm adhering to (as of yet). We'll follow things to wherever facts and features lead.

In that vein, I just ran across a lecture that is saying similar things, essentially. I'm going to be listening to this and related discussions. The lecture is titled Logical weakness in modern pure mathematics (see on youtube) and is given by Prof. Wildberger at UNSW (New South Wales). What caught my eye was that on the first few frames of Part II we find this list of problems:

• Inconsistent rigour
• Problematic definitions
• Reliance on 'axioms'
• Computationally weak
• Impoverished examples

Then, the Prof shows a partitioning into the troublesome areas and those not so much. The list includes: calculus/analysis, set theory/logic, geometry/topology, probability/measure theory and parts of algebraic geometry.

---

Logical weakness in modern pure mathematics

Aside: The lecture topic has 'pure' in it which study does not generally include applications (that's the whole point, removal via abstraction from anything of consequence). But, the Prof mentions  early on that we need to have examples in order to provide a basis that is more solid (paraphrase - pun intended, to boot). As well, though, the argument here is that those who apply are resting themselves, many times, on what the theorists tell them. In a sense, we cannot have pure without its mappings to usage (I know, philosophically arguable) if we are to overcome the weaknesses alluded to by the Prof. Being cheeky, I feel that a peripatetic approach is required, albeit virtually founded. This type of thing is very much in the interest of the techies to pursue (rather than bigger pockets).

---

This post is a marker as I expect things to get interesting as I follow his arguments. It's real nice to run across this. Why? Many times the problems are as I've mentioned here. Teach a manager a little math and watch out. They'll run amok. Lots of what we see on the web (yes, Google, you, too, mathematicians as you claim to be) is this type of thing. I marvel at how far computational methods have been pushed despite the fact that they have the slimmest of supporting theory.

You question this? Ah, open up your code and let us see.

In another realm, we have program trading. This is the highest type of idiocy possible, even if those propagating the madness have their Doctorates (sheesh, you guys/gals, ever consider foundations?).

Remarks:

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

08/08/02012 -- On effectiveness. It's there, and we take advantage of it (even if we have no clue as to its origin -- and let hubris reign more than humility). NASA is a very good example with Curiosity Rover. But, the recent Russian failure to launch a satellite says that things can go awry at any time despite good efforts. NASA has had its failures, too. The main issues are at the boundaries (to be discussed) and when extrapolations go way beyond what the basis will support (many examples, we'll get there). But, as the Prof showed with his rational model, we can extend, indefinitely, twixt two rationals. So, the boundary (reference) above has, at least, a dual meaning.

Aside: The Prof mentions several times his antipathy to thoughts about the infinite and how we may have conquered it (ala Cantor's work, et al). The Prof's approach can go toward the very large, and small, yet it would not be a convergence (another concept that he doesn't like). What would be a good term to use?

08/07/2012 -- MF77 deals with object oriented vs expression oriented. The former has some relations with category theory, etc. The latter one might think of as 'code' related. We can think of demonstrating something computationally rather than jawboning (it's good to hear that this is what mathematicians do). The Prof seems to be pushing computer orientation which raise other issues, but we'll keep listening. If he can keep computers from becoming an even bigger mystery, then all would be well. Otherwise, we're talking the development of a monolith, in a certain sense, that would become troublesome, indeed.

08/06/2012 -- We'll jump to the meat and go through the sequence on Rational Trigonometry. His book and papers are available at the UNSW site.

08/04/2012 -- MF3, at 7:38, shows why 'New Math' failed.

08/04/2012 -- Just went through MF1 and MF2. In essence, the Prof is establishing a foundations of mathematics that is amenable to anyone. The analog? Think about the intelligence tests that are supposedly without any cultural bias. The Prof's approach ought to end with a mathematics that will be accessible to any person who wants to make the effort to learn it, not just the elite class. The consequence: we may find discoveries far beyond our imagination since cultural biases are the most limiting especially for those who are of the advanced types whose talent causes them to be forced into (or reinforced toward) the highest (purported, remember?) cultural status.

08/04/2012 -- The first video of the series (count as of now, 101). As of today, the last video.

At 22:56 of MF87

08/04/2012 -- Will do some notes here as we go along. On finishing up MF87, it was nice to hear him say that the youngsters can smell when things are awry. They may not be able to put their finger on what is the problem, but that there is a problem is, somewhat, obvious to them. I'm not going to follow the lectures sequentially but will bounce around by interest and applicability to my work. Notes will be here; there will be occasional summaries posted with comments about how it all applies to the topic of this blog (and its associates).

Aside: von Neumann said that we can't understand mathematics but get used to it. So, that's by use, repetition, etc. Is the Prof arguing the Hilbert side?

Not being critical at this early stage, as I want to hear what he has to say in its entirety. See 22:56 (image), which is right on!

Modified: 06/25/2015

Renewal

Five years ago, the intuition of the blogger was good, in that most advanced work seemed to honor the denseness of semidecidable systems. And, that is being kind, as most argued that we did not have any need for concern for decidability for ‘finite’ systems. Too, we knew that the standard model had been successfully tweaked over a 100 years or so. Having this success made us lean toward hubris.

But, in actuality, if you look at the world (today or anytime), there are many more “unknown unknowns” (recent look via 7óops7) than our old friend Rumsfeld would admit to. Of course, the craziness that occurred late in the year of 2001 had a real and visceral effect; it was too easy prior to that for some to have an unreasonable comfort about our being untouchable in the area bounded by the two large bodies of water. We are still trying to unwind out of effects from those, and later, events.

At the same time, though, some of those who could [have] exploited the observed success of certain methods by growing the ‘chimera’ way beyond its rational basis. That is, the methodical approaches from physics (at many levels) were brought out to build the apparati that run the markets. If you must, sleight-of-hand keeps the take of some as a perpetual sequence (right there is part reason for the bad smells) while obfuscating the reality by trickery and faulty mathematical arguments.

--

From the first post, the blogger has been suggesting that various mis-applications are the norm and that these are enabled by the growing computational frameworks. You see, the basis is essentially undecidable (which we’ll show); our progress has largely been predicated upon the luck of smart people (we’re in deep dodo, people); yet, we have the charlatans arguing that things are (would be) great if we continue to follow them on the path to perdition.  

--

If we can identify the alleged misdeeds, ought there ensue an orderly discussion about what to do? If only. As it then becomes a conflict between truth and power (and we know, just look at the current election, power has its basis in money – truth, on the other hand, is not of money – this, too, we’ll show).

Not that we expect a fairy-tale ending, but one can still think (and cannot be faulted for thinking) that realizations would be required in order to bring some clarity into situations. But, with Corporations seen as people (in what reality is such a thing conceivable?) the whole environment has changed. The blogger will not be the cynic who thinks that resolution is not possible, but we have our work cut out for us.

The initial focus on how abstraction's appeal has led us astray was correct and will continue. The topic needs to be further clarified.

---

Now, in regard to the economic mess, before the time of the start of the blog, some of the rumblings of structures quaking were already heard by some. Many were awakening to the fact that we were going to experience some type of downturn. What was unexpected was the non-stop exposure of stupidity (idiotic notions being widely disseminated by brilliant minds) almost on a daily basis, the deep depth of the crap that was put there by our leaders, and the length of time in which there has been no resolution of the underlying issues (perps still walk).

WTF! Again, WTF!

All sorts of descriptions are possible, such as the old Rip one waking up to this fact, after a couple of decades or so: the best and brightest were given that label precisely for the fact that they could fill the pockets of the fat cats -- to be defined, again – and themselves (ah, FB is more than a metaphor; it’s a poster boy, to boot).

Remarks:

08/08/2012 -- We need the effectiveness (unreasonable or not) to be cast in a new light. Curiosity Rover, et al, is an example of how things can go. 

08/05/2012 -- Added pointer to updated look at unknowns via 7'oops7. Some editing (periodicals have teams plus an iterative process, yet you'll see typos now and then (more frequently nowadays with computer assist being the vogue) -- several lessons in that, perhaps). 

Note: See comment on using another approach, below. Need to tweak it. All the style information that was carried over is troublesome. Oh well. Of course, I know how to filter out and get minimal HTML, but why is it seen as smart (or progressive) to bring in this type of crappy assistance (not any better than it was a few years ago)? 

08/04/2012 -- Weakness? Yes, indeed. 

08/04/2012 -- This was the first post that was developed in a modern editor and then copied to the blog editor. We'll try that for awhile. Having the more intuitive interface ought to help expositions formulate. 

Modified: 08/07/2012

Five years?

It was this day, five years ago, that the blog got its start. The first post asked the question: Can truth be engineered? Of course, to even ponder such a question requires us to cover a whole lot of groundwork. And, bunches of meanderings over the 'landscape' (nod to Susskind, for starters) ensued.

Too, though, there were side-tracks, some of which were quite involved. Why? It was only a few months later (first post with some content related to the problems that started to lurk - anticipating the 99%-ers outrage that would come about later?) that it became apparent that the financial world's transformation of beautiful work (mathematics) from its associated realm of the physical sciences to that of the "money'd" spaces where we find things like greed, and such. It's not that the sciences are pure (though, many would like to think so), yet, none of the putrid smells that we get from the likes of some bankers (and others in that realm) are in the sciences (at least, not as pervasive - after all, people are people). So, we had to look at that whole class of idiocy.

---

At the time of the beginning, truth was to be considered from the small 't' side for a long while. And, the interest was very much directed toward computational aspects. There were many motivations from the effort some of which go back to the blogger's early experiences at knowledge, and messes related thereunto. Of course, that, then, leads to mathematics which, from the beginning, was addressed from the 'effectiveness' angle that is argued under quasi-empiricism (7oops7, FEDaerated). But, too, delving into matters brought out the fact that the focus of the blog ought to be complemented with a couple of other approaches (actually, more), namely the 7oops7 and FEDaerated (referenced in the prior sentence).

During the past five years, there have been many technological changes brought to us in the form of the web. Did you think much of the 'cloud' then? Facebook, in its current mode? Basically, much progress was due to clever use of technology. As things are defined and demonstrated, efforts at standards can help ratchet up the basis shared by everyone. Look at HTML5, for example.

---

So, here we are, after a little hiatus that was spent in a grand search both in reality and virtual worlds. Are we any closer to determining the basis with which to discuss truth? Well, perhaps, if you consider that it would be a type of situational closure (or compactification) for the purpose of attempting definitions with which to found arguments. Example, Either/Or is an example. Actually, the intent there may be to describe some 'meme' like characteristics that would allow pause to vociferous views on either side so that reason (yes, Richard) might be considered in a new light. But, there are many other voices in the mix.

For example, the blogger ran across this one today while doing a specific search (Bing) on Susskind: Closer to truth and Edge. But, someone using truth in a business sense came from another search. That is, when the blog started 'truth engineering' came back with results that concerned 'truth in engineering' which is still the most prevalent search result. Now, this blog will come up, many times. But there are other results, like these two: Truth Technologies, Inc. and Truth Technologies LLC. The former's interest deals with compliance with laws that relate to limiting financial misdeeds (why does that strike a bell?).

---

So, this might be the time for a few words about the approach as things go forward. Expect that the tone will be more considered and technical (as opposed to the groundless 'opinion' that seems to be the main flavor of blogs). One thing about the latter is that mathematical concepts can be expressed in words as we see with Susskind's efforts at explaining his work. At some point, we might actually get formal and rigorous. Even without that, the topic will never be trivial nor can it be exhausted.

---

The 'engineering' focus here has an analog with that which was done with chaos. Some 'truth' determinations will require heavy computation, thereby be reliant on computer assistance. A lot (and this is measurable) will be resolved through human expertise, including educated intuition. The movement outward on the abstraction scale almost everywhere, which is about 300 years in development, has been fun yet it carried a whole lot of trouble with it, the evidence of which abounds around us (very densely, folks).

Remarks:

08/04/2012 -- We'll start our technical trek and look.

07/24/2012 -- Chompsky on the Magna Carta and our rights to Commons.

Modified: 08/04/2012

Myth of the monolithic

Venturing on T-issues, somewhat, let's lay out a few concepts, to be handled further later (the usual punt). In certain discussions (say, Hitch), the use of 'monolithic' comes (or can come) about. But, the term projects (embeds) itself geometrically. As in, some structural affair that is part of our getup comes to fore (we're only human after all -- also, think Brouwer).

---

Ah, earlier, we ventured upon 'symmetry' as necessary for these discussions, as it is an essential property. If there is anything monolithic, it's that we, as humans, span something that is polar at its extremes (to be defined), yet integrated when seen in its own being. And people just exult themselves on finding what they think is the 'highest' peak.

Aside: little ants running around Creations Mystery (hint here is that I'll give Krauss the benefit of the doubt (and will get back to this) -- the only issue that he needs to consider is the self-referential nature of what he is doing and its basis -- okay? Lawrence -- those thinking of computability are chasing part of the problem) and trying to collect all of their little truths into the large Truth (never to be). The peaks? Even having the thought of 'highest' will prevent one from attaining the state.

--

So, why this? Well, it has to do with trying to understand that against which Hitch railed? Of course, we have all of those silly humans playing their games, putting on their ritualistic garments and messing up our stage (yes, the world is linear and Hilbert). But, it's their right to do so. Again, being human, there are social norms which keep peace in the large.

Actually, either/or would argue for a basic respect for other's thinking, as long as they're not trampling on the rights (ah so, what are those? -- unfortunately, that is an unsettled question in modern America) of others (get it?). If the thing were done correctly, would not my rights then be protected if I'm looking out for my neighbor and he/she is looking out for me -- the bro-hood thing approximated in the military context? We do not need the 'big brother' (who assessed that he is adult enough for the responsibility?).

---

Now, it must be said that this line of reasoning is not suggesting that there is not Something behind that which Krauss labels as Mystery (his capitalization). It is just that the Something is more than we can comprehend -- we've known that for many 1000s of years, folks.

Just what is the problem? Power! People poking their nose, for a myriad of motivations. It's way more than the glass-house. As I've said with CEOs, we clean their damn diapers (yes, Jamie, you, too). That is, they crap on the world; we're supposed to think that the crap is the best smelling thing. Wait! Sorry, fell off the wagon here, for a moment.

In other words, idiotic, childish (all sorts of characterizations) behavior on the part of supposed adult humans (Hitch was right to rail against this -- clergy? you guys are the biggest pokers -- unfortunately, that use of 'poke' has more connotations now than we ever thought possible).

---

So, I'll retract the sarcastic remark about rituals. Dress up all you want; don't try to get me pulled into the thing, though, okay [me, in this case, substitutes for 'we' in order to prevent notions of royal selves -- rephrased, don't try to gather into your fold those who have their own fold - you see, flock (as in, those of a fold) fracases are the problem]?

---

So, finally, we'll have to rephrase a whole bunch of stuff in order to get out of the knee-jerk mode. Science has tried to use mathematics for this. It is not sufficient. First of all, there is the computer issue. Secondly, it's not as 'intuitive' (not knocking Luitzen) as we might like (as von Neumann said, we don't understand it, we just get used to it -- ah, so! ... equational yada yada).

How long will it take? There are certain steps that will be necessary (I'll be bold enough -- audacious -- to attempt an itemization -- at some point) that will be more clear when the basis is better known (meaning that there is a lack now? ...).

Remarks:

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

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 (as in, no monolith - lose that idea). 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).

08/04/2012 -- Nice look at either/or. We'll start to look at why 'decidable' is going to be an important concept. Nods to Turing. 

07/23/2012 -- Didn't mention one aspect of the new thrust, yesterday. Essentially, I'll be pulling, from 45 years ago, some work into modern jargon as the work's focus is apropos to the discussions.

07/22/2012 -- Now looking at applied mathematics, from several senses. Some of it will be computationally oriented. Yet, we have to know what is behind the use. Do you not see? So, we'll have to look at why particular decisions have been made over the past century or so. Prof Osgood looks at that briefly within the context that he is covering. Another domain would deal with our basic problems of cosmology and quanta (large juxtaposition there, however the thinking is the same -- of course, same boundaries that are inherited by being humanly constrained). So, let's put out one notion, to be discussed. The whole thing of the 'monolith' seems to revolve around a deeply held idea that there is some overall, universal, frame of reference. After all, we use the earth to base some types of relativistic calculations. Unconsciously, we do the same thing with ourselves (yes, hubris abounds is about the only fact that we can see at the moment) as we push our cosmological, and other, knowledge far beyond any type of reasonable basis.

07/08/2012 -- Watching Prof Osgood's lectures, up to 15, which is half-way, and will continue to the end (at a faster pace, hopefully). Why is this important? These types of mapping (classically, most date from the period of expansion in the late 18th/early 19th century) move 'something' from space to space in order to help resolve calculation (in the classic sense of computing to a result that is usable). In the case of this class, Fourier Transforms, the approach's deal with the core of how we know. That is, signals (either from nature or from our interpretation - as in sensor/lense/filter, etc. -- okay?) are processed until noise is diminished. Now to the crux:

• Prof Osgood uses distributions to proof theorems at a fairly high-level. Of course, this looks powerful, magical, and is useful. 
• The ease comes from carefully defining what is necessary (or, I might add, essential). Yet, residue (to be discussed further) must be there at various places. Are these not of significance (pun intended)? 
• Part of the magic deals with quasi-empirical concerns about which we will always pay attention. That is, from whence the fact that mathematics can (and does, in many, cases) work? 

06/26/2012 -- T-issues will be addressed from time to time. In the meantime, one person to read about is Elijah who continues to have much appeal to this day. Too, going back to the lecture series that is much more interesting than those Ben did earlier this year, we see a demarcation early in Lecture 11, after Prof Osgood clears up some issue about the Central Limit Theorem's proof (using techniques discussed in the lectures), where the Prof talks about things talked about so far (problems solved) were correct, but not of use. Why? Mainly, there are issues related to special techniques (mostly ad-hoc) and to redoing foundational views. And, we're talking, in this case, about something that is 200+ years old, has had a lot of attention by smart people over all of this time, and deals with things that are, at least, amenable to analysis. Too, the synthesis involved doesn't make grand assumptions. Now, similar types of methods have been applied all across the wide horizon of advanced cognition (as in science and more) and practice, yet, how firm can we call the basis? Not as developed as we would like to believe (when we can believe politicians, perhaps, that'll be the day). Not enough for all of the wool-pulling that I've seen. But, we'll continue in the effort to make this plain as is the sun in the sky at noon (on a clear day).

06/21/2012 -- Yesterday's remark mentioned some difference between the processing of the language of mathematics and a natural language. We talk about God (and much more) in the latter. One thing different is the 'functional' nature of mathematics (wait, let me explain, before PTIME, I hope). Yet, people's reactions to words can be approximated in that same manner (note, some type of limit required). We'll get to it. As an aside, the universities are offering their courses on line. Example: Prof Osgood's look at Fourier's work. Notice, please, that there are 300K reads for Lecture 1. Lecture 2 has 100K while Lecture 30 has reduced to 10K. But, look at Lectures 28 and 29 with only 6K reads (some people jumped to the end, methinks). As the Prof says, these things are hard and take a lot of work. Mathematicians? They do their own work. Politicians (kings, et al)? Others do their work for them.

06/21/2012 -- Listened to a math professor, by video yesterday, talk (in the context of a fairly complicated application area -- which is used quite a lot) about his having to qualify statements as he talked about things as it seems to be an interminable activity. Why? Any statement (provable, type) needs to be explicit. Yet (my put, here), that it's processed through human cognition brings in the implicit (you see, that's the key). The use of 'monolith' denotes physical being (oh, you will tell me that applying 'Monolithic' to God does not say something about Being, with some notion of physicality -- let me remind you of a major conflict over the past 1200+ years on just this subject -- hopefully, I won't have to be specific here -- oh yes, I will, at some point). Now, if the statements are processed by a system (as in, code), we still don't get our arms around the whole thing (hence, all of the holes in the cloud-ish types of things).

06/20/2012 -- Also, hidden beneath the above is the fact that several human traits are going to become more important, and better used, than we've seen before. In fact, part of the knee-jerk is recoiling from these since they are universally found, not just given to the 'gifted' (that class, who throughout our history (and even before the recorded type) have used their talents to 'lord' it over others and to, basically, run the world as they have seen fit). All this leads me to start to think of STEM (what it might mean, in the several senses).

06/20/2012 -- Now, after all of that, why pick the monolith? Well, more reasons than that it played a role in 2001 (yes, the movie, old stuff). But, true, 'monolithic' would be only one attribute. Would not all attributes be encompassed by the Unknowable? Oh? You ask about the negative ones? By symmetry, we would have a way to view anything 'negative' in another light. Actually, since we're dealing with Being (define as you will, but know that in doing so, you're trying to limit that beyond limit), we have to be careful with words. And, it's already been said that mathematics doesn't carry us any further; it, too, is language based, in part. After all, those who interpret systems do so in a manner not dissimilar to reading. Just because there may be more density in the approach (as in, what meaning may be in a simple symbol) does not change that fact. But, another aspect comes to fore. Computing. And, it is a fact, now, that systems can be processed artificially, almost ad infinitum given sufficient energy. Therein is another problem (nod to Turing).

Modified: 06/25/2015

Patris et filius

This post continues a series or two. It is partly motivated by the day (06/17/12) where fathers are remembered, by some. And, the coming first anniversary of GEK III's passing motivates.

---

The three of this photo, in a sense immortalized by the techniques that both represent our prowess (and portend so much), are now gone on to the wider realm after leaving us within a few months of each other.   We can think of several labels for this collection, each with its own significance: tres hombres, three spirits, a trio of liberals, fathers, sons, and more. The one that will be the focus for awhile? Father and son.

Aside: It is an issue of either/or that allows comment about the 'realm' and more; one wonders what twists of phlegm-ish expectorants might be heaved this way as a result of the comment's impact.


---

Tres hombres, Three Spirits, Trio of Liberals

The photos used in this composite are somewhat concurrent in time (we'll get to that below). In fact, two subjects of the photos were on the same campus within the same period. Each person was mind-ful, with differing talents that are of interest to the subject. And, each played roles after the moment caught by film that bear some attention.

---

Ah, the innocence of the times of those photos. The time? It twas before either Presidents Ford or Carter. And, it was after the youngsters began to exhibit troublesome behavior on a mass scale, from the Free Speech movement onward. Now, mind you, put your mind, for a bit, away from the cloud (and its analogs; in other words, lose, if you can, the notion that we are at some peak of knowing-ness) and consider a subset of what became known as the 'boomer' generation. No one had any idea of what was going on (by the way, at some point, we'll put in links to songs that hinted, yet didn't deliver ..., art's purpose and limit) and do not now [know] in retrospect. And, when I say en masse, it is correct, as things mushroomed.

One telling thing, though, was the peaceful nature (record-breaking assemblages, sometimes peaceful); true, a lot of the focus was anti-war. And, it was mostly of the young (but, not altogether).

Aside: One might characterize some war as up-wellings of this same sort. We can go into that whole cycle, in depth, as we look at 1000-year influences that recur (again and again). Incidentally, have you thought of the Magna Carta (June 15th, sealed) lately? A lot of war is exploitation, though. Again, serfs as cannon fodder for their lords (who don't get their hands dirty).

---


All through history, there have been movements. In fact, in the physical sense, itinerant groups of people have always been a reality. There were more motivations than we want to go into here (economics plus, okay?). Yet, the power that became associated with the flow (time of the photo, okay?) was an existential affair that just welled because it could. The time was right. And, the time captured above was precursor to lots of 'flowering' that we see happening around the world.

Aside: Power to the people suggests that 'people' can be more than the 'elite' would like us to consider. Ignoring the T-issue, for now, people can be said to have much more potential than many are allowed (or have the opportunity) to develop. We've gone into that (search on 'new royalty' and other musings about 'lords' who like to lord (yes, pun) it over others) quite a bit (Hitch didn't 'lord' so much as trim down egos - certain types, that is).

---

So, in these remembrances, not all of the three can be included in each of the groupings that we can conceive. Yet, though one or two may have membership (we'll get to all this eventually), the other was (others were) not inimical to the ideas being put forth. There are many factors to consider, like Hitch's duty of self (autodidact, in a sense) implicit in his arguments . In fact, the relations, of the blogger, to each varies, too. Two were personally known. The third is associated via a set of measures (think about Kevin, for an example) and more.

---

Where are we now in relation to that time (of the photo)? It wasn't innocent for all (after all, we're talking two Yanks and a Brit, here - the new world's master and the older one who is still looking for wisdom); nor was it as innocent as it may have looked to some. Many seem to want to go back; others seem to think that they missed out by not being there (by the way, there?). Yet, when one considers the current problems (and looks at the players and the plays), they seem to be of the same ilk. Of course, we have better ways to message (and media up the wazoo); with the cloud, zombies can be anywhere, not necessarily 'altered' in any normal sense; no, they're just in a state that is a natural response to that which is coming as stimuli (another theme, of importance); and more. Who will be mind-ful of the younger sets? Will they be able to be so?

---

This post is a mere first step, a slight onset. Let's end with a couple of adages. There's nothing new under the sun (yes, technologists barf at this). And, the earth is round, but the world is flat (ah, as the barb said, a stage -- if you must, it's that interminable set of linear-izers that we all carry around (source for our conflicts that are based on sizing up (Hitch was good at that) each other) -- t-issues say that it's much more than that -- we'll get there).

Remarks:

10/13/2015 -- "God" as name or predicate? How about Being?

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

04/23/2015 -- George at Beats in Kansas.

12/20/2014 -- George's birthday (1943). But, it was innocence, that of youth. That generation bifurcated, later, as is always the case (in all sorts of polarities - too, it split into many pieces). If we would look back at the boomers (and their times, flowers and all - my position, on the leading edge, not of but riding the waves of their impetus), they were the first to bring large numbers to the surge that we can observe with the change-of-cohort guard several times a century. There was, then, the emergence in other than the U.S., but here it (that energetic thrust - so sadly, not understood at all) played out more fully. ... How many "springs" have we seen of late? How many fruit'ed? Luckily, many do not outgrow their youthfulness (there are ways to characterize this, many of which bring derisive reactions - does not reduce the dynamics, though) and play their "adult" roles without losing their soul. Too many (one by the initials of DC - never reflects, ah - guy, you missed the scene?) let their responsibilities freeze that which brings them life (as in, ..., here goes, ..., no matter what role you play now, or your attitude, or your power, or your supposed gifts, or ..., you are still a "child" of ..., God, ...). ... I was lucky enough to catch GEK III in some of his boyish, innocent, ..., moments. ... Ah, how do we bring back the wonder back ...?

02/08/2014 -- Two years (02/09/2012), more on Truth Engineering (and, the hombres).

12/20/2013 -- George's 70th. So, looking at the tres, there is a sequence: personal, state, world, with various mixtures, thereof.

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?

Closer than a shadow

07/07/2013 -- Two years ago (07/06/2011), for GEK III. No comment, as of yet, on his FB page. Of course, social media, and its uses, are new to us. As a culture, we have a day, in late May, where many visit the graves of their families. Or, re-look at their ancestors. Let's do a slogan: Ancestors - closer than a shadow.

02/09/2013 -- One year ago, for CTS Jr. So many current events, and extant beings, are creating an ever-increasing stack of things to remark about. Why does the time and energy line seem to be tangent to this stack's principle curve (see, on FB, Engineer Memes)? Perhaps, the clue is to not bother with those superficial elements (as does social media, say FB, et al); rather, look at the more universal properties (yes, we are able, given effort) that are seemingly (as in, as far as we can know) endless.

10/13/2012 -- Truth and the senses.

07/06/2012 -- Today, we have the one-year remembrance of George Edward Kimball III (GEK III).

06/26/2012 -- Beyond words, for now.

06/20/2012 -- Will start to look at the basics.

06/17/2012 -- Need to bring in the father figure issue. Guys know that some play this role, beyond the family. It's inevitable. Part of the fabric of our being (in many more senses than the George Michael's song look -- see, I warned of this). Look, people, authority figures are 'father' figures (even if female -- the military knows this -- did you run across a 'mother' figure when you were in the service?); Hitch knew that we would have to deal with that in order to 'free' our minds. Of course, we'll visit this again.

06/17/2012 -- Again, innocence? The build-up in troops in southeast Asia was large by the time of these photos. For what? We ask now; ought to have asked then (still)? And now, all sorts of things are going on under the guise of America. We can ask: which America?

06/16/2012 -- Is it comical to use 'innocence' as Nixon was in office at the time?

Modified: 10/13/2015

Out on a limb

I was just going over the posts that are getting visited. One from 2009 is there. Why? Will try to find out, but its subject dealt with going out on a limb, as we see many people do. Either this risky behavior comes about through not knowing possible consequences or not caring about these if they are known. Of course, there are other possible reasons.

Aside: finance is supposed to not have that latter attitude, especially when dealing with other peoples' money. Yet, they very much did (we have not learned the lessons).

---

Anyway, SpaceX was successful in their first attempt which is remarkable and very much interesting to our discussions (so expect more on this). For this shot, there wasn't really a 'limb' per se, at least, not one as large as one might think. They had accomplished several test shots with the rocket and module. Also, a whole lot of thinking (and coordinated work) went into the attempt. The payload could have been lost without much sacrifice. Then, NASA made sure that they could approach the ISS in a controlled manner. Too, the final approach was to the point of being within grasp of the robot arm. Making an approach, under remote control, would have been problematic (we'll address these types of things under 7oops7). As well, the environment on the module was tested on earth, yet those boarding wore oxygen masks.

---

I have to admit; I wasn't paying attention to the SpaceX activity. I will henceforth. The last time I paid a little attention to NASA was last year when the shuttle program was stopped. Then, there was a lot of discussion about what was next, some of which I participated in having an interest in design and test.

That the future is being defined by private interests, with NASA's money in part, will be something to look at closely. Of course, a lot is being written about this stuff, from all sides. Yet, the theme is applicable to all of the blogs related to this one (7oops7 and Fedaerated).

---

In short, we'll look at differences between government (the common weal) and business (private ownership and profit) as they pertain to program decisions. SpaceX plans to have people on board within the next few years. One thing about NASA is that the engineering was very conservative (for one thing, a relaxation in a decision process along all types of axis would not be done). Also, ever seen by-gosh and by-golly instances, generally?

---

SpaceX, on a quick review, seems to have things in hand. We can congratulate them on their success in this case and then look to their future efforts. Of course, they are one of many companies who will be attracting attention. New world, indeed.

---

Government might be the big mama and worry overly about safety and a bunch of other things. We, as a society, usually don't put people into dire straits (wait! is that so?). Naturally, risk is always there; we cannot cut things to zero for anything complicated. Yet, there is the notion of cowboy that some engineers like to cast about (general comment, not particular to any one company) which likes to bask in the glory of risky behavior (and its rewards). Look. Is not that what the jerks on the Street argue all the time? No risk, no gain? Anyway, another thing that companies do is cut (ah, in many cases, to cut to the quick and to the point of in-effectiveness -- wait, it's inherent, anyway, that we'll have to work to be effective).

Sometimes, it comes down to the three bear story: just right for the situation. However, we do not have 20-20 vision looking forward, despite the fact that a lot of what we see is a re-play (to be explained, in due time). In fact, we do not have 20-20 in reverse, either.

---

The beauty offered by SpaceX's effort is that it deals with engineering. Nice (the original focus of 7oops7). Too, decisions related to business are going to come up again and again. Great (that to which 7oops7 morphed).

Remarks:

06/16/2012 -- The landing culminated a voyage that went without any big hiccups. Can't say beginner's luck as much thought and preparation went into the event. Yet, it was a first attempt (test, if you would). Modelling, by itself, is not sufficient to cover the bases. How much of a base needs to be covered is a thing to determine; it'll be larger when people are aboard. The thing was not pure private money, as NASA is bellying up. Now, let's consider whether a private company (other than non-profit) can carry out a mission for a long period of time without penny-pinching, or extorting, in order to fill the pockets of those who claim to be 'capitalists' (and so, on top of the evolutionary heap -- give me a break) needing their payback. Ah, so much to consider here. Again, congratulations to the teams involved for a job well done.

Modified: 06/16/2012

Either / Or

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

---

Of course, we'll have to give a nod (actually, many) to Kierkegaard's thinking on the subject. He has been mentioned before, this same context.

One has to wonder what Soren would think of the modern concept of memes. We'll look more closely at one way the idea has been used on the web (The Daily Meme -- it's nice to see the attention, some, of course, still criticize the notion).

---

First, though, here are a couple of posts that deal with the subject. Both of these are from the early part of 2012. Hitchens features, to boot.

• It is or it is not -- One thing that attracted people about Hitch was the breadth of his grasp of what had been said (written) about these topics (over time and cultures). Of course, Hitch had his own twist and was able to reign (in the mix). As in, most had to be removed (or remove themselves) from his presence in order to regain their critical mindfulness (that is a story to tell). Essentially, the theme is choice. Some choices seem to be more 'smart' (whatever that is) than others; definitely, we're more aware now of the cultural influences. Not forgetting, mind you, the nature (genetic) part of things.
• Blind or delusional -- How to know which is which? A stack of credentials and a large collection of accolades? Ah, is that so? Success by an accumulation of money (oh yes, we see that thing raise its head a lot)? Of course, we always can fall back to the 'proof of the pudding' argument. Which is? The eating (somewhat). Now, with this, we get down to an operational mode. One might say, arguing from effectiveness. Our problem is that money accrual seems to have taken on immense importance (it's easy to see why, folks, as we have always been lame at evaluating hot air - which money is, even with its purchase/power qualities). 

---

By the way, the attempts at evaluation are meme-based (we'll have to characterize this further).

---

The existence of 'truth engines' is a fact, both in a natural and a memetic sense. In the former, we hope that science can help us learn how this works so as to be put to use for the benefit of all (not the favored few). In terms of the later, all sorts of questions abound (just look at the criticisms of the use of memes -- understandable, I have talked how it allows a look at what is really metaphysical without seeming to do so). Yet, that the meme has properties that are amenable to our poking around (after all, we do 'read' them -- naturally, the metaphoric scheme has computational flavor -- as we process these things) needs to be addressed. We'll put some attention there.

Remarks:

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

01/05/2015 -- Renewal, see Context line.

11/03/2014 -- Related to this are questions like: is math created?

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).

12/13/2012 -- Is it time to move beyond the Turing Test?

11/08/2012 -- Wonderful new blog: Engineering Memes.

08/04/2012 -- Nice look at either/or. We'll start to look at why 'decidable' is going to be an important concept. Nods to Turing.

06/20/2012 -- Yes, Hitch, and his new friend, again.

Modified: 06/25/2015