Genealogy and memes

A recent WDYTYA highlighted part of Cindy Crawford's ancestry and showed her descent from Charlemagne. Someone estimated that 1000 hours of research had gone into this particular episode. These shows, and ads by sites like ancestry.com, have increased the interest in genealogy.

Of those 1000 hours, how many were related to backtracking from a dead-end? Humans have some type of reduction/closure operator that pares graphs in an ex-post-facto fashion so that the details (grunt work? - let's hear it for the Marines and soldiers who have their feet on the ground - and those who get themselves daily into the dirt for the collective well-being) get shuffled out. A look back then sees a glorified (dusted off) reality. Actually, if you look at the state-of-the-art of planning and controlling (it's under a general topic called, by some, earned value), it's too easy to miscalculate what is necessary going forward to accomplish some task (actually, we don't have 20-20 hindsight, either). To wit? Microsoft, Boeing, ... (it's a very long list, folks).

---

We had a similar increase in genealogical interest here around the turn of the century (the 1900 one). At that time, we had the 300th anniversary of Jamestown and New England. Too, it was a little past the 100th of the American Revolution. Now, we have seen, and are looking forward to, 400th anniversaries.

Aside: Our truth interests are several. Firstly, humans are directly involved with truth. We'll go into that further. Too, memes come into play when considering humans and their progress/regress.

---

For perspective, at the cohort level where some of Cindy's ancestor took the journey to this side of the pond (1600s), she would have 1000s of ancestors. What we see, or can retrieve, are single threads, sometimes twisted through inter-marriage. That means that there are holes in the tree; normal people don't have a filled in tree, say as compared to that of Princes William and Harry.

As a means to discriminate the unworthy, the upper crust had to be vigilant since they didn't want interlopers. Except, over here, people started to do data collecting, and analysis, early on (there are wonderful collections; yet, fires and other disasters have taken away lot -- even, to the current - the U.S. Army had a fire at its records site in Saint Louis, MO in the 1960s -- as you would guess, with losses).

So, being able to prove a lineage is more uncommon that we would like to consider. Most people have large holes in their trees. Or, some like to think of walls (solid material, like bricks) that keep one from venturing back. Trying to fill these in (or climb over the barrier) motivates a lot of work.

Aside: Any accumulation of genealogical knowledge resulted from prior work. It would be nice if it were like mathematics where later theorems, that are extensions, explicitly reference the former work. Not giving credit where due seems to be a norm in genealogy.

Aside: With Charlemagne, some still argue about the lines. Of course, Medievalist do more than just think of lineage. We need people to think of cohorts of Charlie or the state of the world when he was there (say, year of birth, 742).

---

Just as we see with genealogy, no problem/solution set is completely filled in. That idea, folks, is a panacea. The usual retort is that there ain't no silver bullet. But, we need to take it further (and will). A few comments, of late here, have involved the need to think of "singularities." Perhaps, that is an overused term (concept), so we'll need to coin something. The issue is partly mathematical, in scope.

Remarks:

03/03/2014 -- Example that will be the focus.

09/02/2013 -- Looking forward to future episodes.

09/01/2013 -- After seeing the Cindy episode in which she visits Charlie's grave, there is a guy (seen him before) who pompously says that Charlie was the father of Europe and Cindy ought to be proud (or something like that) about Charlie being her grandfather. Perhaps he was the father of Europe, as, after his son's death, they divided the kingdom amongst (some of) his grandsons. And, along with fighting the frequent raiders from outside (too numerous to name), there was fighting amongst cousins. Makes one wonder how these Christian countries adopted such practices as the Savior never condoned. Could there have been some type of united Europe back then? Well, the militaristic (aggressive) nature of some peoples, say Muslims, may argue against being too insular and defenseless. Or even the Vikings who found the monks and their property too easy to pilfer. So, are there lessons that we can learn from so long ago, 50+ generations?

08/30/2013 -- I browsed today a recent book on Charles II's ancestry. It has a recent publication date. Well, about the eighth generation, a hole appeared. Now, this would carry forward. And, one could probably find hole later one. Now, remember, eight generations is a couple of centuries. I don't think that anyone here would have a filled in tree going back 200 years. If there is someone who is close (say, as close as would be the Princes - see above - I would like to hear about it).

Modified: 03/03/2014

Mathematics I

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

---

Introductions:

Our collective friend, Hitchens, said many things that we ought to think about now and then. And, based upon the websites that are quoting Hitchens, there are many who are doing just that. One of his quotes actually made it to the TED (deals with current, and future, technological issues) site.

In short (paraphrased), assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. When I first saw that quote being reported in some web page from some source (actually, Google brings up several sites - but, my first awareness was several years ago), I felt that I would have responded to him, something like this (had I the quick wit under the spotlight and were in his presence): like axioms? You see, Hitchens was many times pushed beyond the point where he said that he didn't know. Yes, he said "didn't know" many times; but, either given his inherent talent at showmanship or mere frustration at putting idiots in a bottle or whatever other motive, Hitchens would go off on his erudition-showing response (sometimes, these were rants - however, well considered and stated).

---

Aside: Some attribute the quote to Richard Dawkins who made a similar statement. Wikipedia points to what is known as Hitchens' Razor with references. And, it's really a re-phrasing of an age-old slogan.

---

A constructive look:

Hitchens did not deal with mathematics, but he did respect results that were founded upon such. You see, that would be most of modern scientific models ("most" is arguable; however, we're talking 2000 plus and the fact that about every discipline has mathematized its knowledge base - many times to a large degree -- I ask, what discipline with any modicum of a quantitative does not use advanced statistical methods?). So, who of the modern domains has not used mathematics?

It turns out that there may be many who are not so learned (not meant pejoratively). As, this revolves around a central issue related to numeracy, or lack thereof, that has insidious implications for the future. We'll get back to that. Expect though, for me to show that numeracy limits us, many ways (not arguing against the great ideas founded upon numbers and the computational -- rather, consider, can our artifacts subsume Being?).

The basics:

We'll first have to deal with what exactly is this thing called "mathematics?" We can start with a few little pointers here and branch out. Please note, this approach is pseudo-constructive (albeit, not to the level of Bourbaki - yet, effective in its own way, as we will show).

Pythagoras

1. An encyclopedia is a good place to start: Wolfram's MathWorld comes to mind. I have watched this grow (and, even, to a small extent, contributed). As well, the Wikipedia view is phenomenal (actually, what I love about Wiki is that I can look at something (that is well-sourced, usually) without running down myriads papers and books). By studying this type of material, one could get a fairly good idea of what mathematics is, though several issues, such as motivation, would not be as apparent as could be. As Plato thought, arithmetic can be one of the starting points for mathematical education. Geometry, and its use in our world, is the next step. 
2. We can also take a behavioral view and say this: mathematics is what mathematicians do (this little thing out of St. Andrews is wonderful - please look at the Mathematician of the day page). If we cared to study all that has been done, then we might have some idea of what this field encompasses. But, much of mathematics is mental (and, we don't normally expect people to read minds). One may see symbols and numbers, yet, their use is not always intuitively obvious. On the other hand, we can see what has been labelled under the concept, even if future perturbations, and extensions, would not be seen using this descriptive approach. However, there is one little thing that lurks: is mathematics more than what people do (next bullet)?  
3. Ah, metaphysics coming in? Let's keep it simple, as we could discuss, for a long time, what might be called the differences between big "M" (Mathematics) and little "m" (mathematics). How can we circumvent that? You see, if you look at MathWorld (or what Mathematica does), you'll see all sorts of operative marvels (basis of STEM) with results that astound (our technological age) when looked at closely. Yet, just ask yourself if the reality behind whatever is being expressed (or computed or manipulated) by our artifact (assuming small m, okay?) is equivalent to what we understand via our use of the artifact? Another way to think of it is to consider the map-territory problem. First, extend "map" to encompass the sum total of our prowess with mathematics. The territory? Yes, we would really like to know (but it's not the former). In short, we tend to get these two merged (map-territory) as there seems to be no real way to do the differentiation (ability to note differences) many times (as in, that particular action is underdetermined - note, please, the poster is very much aware of proof-theoretic powers - yet, the poster sees the importance of being aware of quasi-empiricism and its issues).   
4. Is mathematics that which can be built from axioms and proofs? We all know that mathematics involves theorems. Some of these are applicable to our lives; others are beyond the comprehension of most (if you listen to von Neumann, he would say beyond the comprehension of any - see first quote). Now, there are many ways to argue proof methods, but logic is involved. Then, that brings in knowledge and how we know. Also, we need to consider Russell's and Whitehead's efforts to put a firm basis under logic. It took hundreds of pages to get to proving (by terse equations) simple addition which we can teach early on to the human mind. Too, Russell, and later work, brought in computablilty issues which may or may not be problematic to the future of automation (ah, letting the cat out of the bag - the web is laden, heavily with pseudo-mathematical pursuits what need our scrutiny).           

Now, that listing is not trivial. But, the list does include the important things and has a progression that we'll be looking at in depth (basis for truth engineering's necessity and operational look).

1. What? We know that we have mathematics and its use; such is abundantly evident. Much work in mathematics has been done over the years. The web has allowed an acceleration of means to get access to information about mathematics and provides a common platform for discussion and use. Marvelous techniques exist. The trend seems to be toward automation of some of these. The truth, folks, is that higher-order computation (as in advanced mathematics) requires, generally, human involvement in two, and perhaps more, areas. One is input (see the qualification problem as an example -- numeric processes have oodles of decision states prior to execution - in other words, setting up a solution attempt is a creative task). Then, we have output issues dealing with more than interpretation. For instance, ramification is important. 
2. Who? We see people doing mathematics. Only some of those are involved with computation. But, certain classes of problems are computationally oriented and will continue to be so as technological progress improves computational artifacts and methods (of a very wide variety). That there is motivation to learn and do mathematics seems obvious, too. We have not seen a decline in the interest. More later. 
3. Where? As we use mathematics, the larger picture does not go away. But, we'll defer all of that til later. 
4. How? As, there is controversy about hubris and its appearance. It's almost impossible to know this up-front. In retrospect, we see it, or think that we do, many times. Unfortunately, right now, we have the finance community running off after multitudes of seemingly smart approaches; we need to push some type of sand box (or, at least, now, some notion thereof) into the awareness of these, folks; this we would like to demonstrate.

---

As stated at the start, there was some nod to Hitchens in this post albeit we are dealing with mathematics. The content here takes a broad view and tries to identify the major pieces. Getting into all of the nuances will be on-going, albeit the looks will be more broad than deep (for awhile, at least - at some point, we'll have to take on a few of the more important points in a technical manner).  

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.

01/23/2015 -- Software? Well, we are talking more than apps (latest craze). We are dealing with fundamental questions which, then, gives rise to normative issues in mathematics (and, by extension, to the computational).

01/05/2015 -- Added context line at top. We're at a renew point.

03/03/2014 -- Acknowledgements, including math pedigree, will be expanded.

08/06/2013 -- Investigative journalism likes its Five Ws. That is fine for their topical views. To get technical, we have to add in, at least, an H (How?). Too, we need to change the order, according to various factors: domain, focal area, and more.

So, the order of the above list is "What?, Who?, Where?, How?."  There are other orders. For instance, "How?" have could come before "Where?" in the list. That, though, would have changed the emphasis (recall, truth engineering is the overarching theme).

We're ignoring Why? (why not?) and When? (ah, history of mathematics -- the future, too?).

08/05/2013 -- In this interview, Hitchens uses "horribly un-reflective" (around 12:00) in response to his Iraq stance's outcome (turmoil amongst those who wondered where he was coming from?) and whether he had, or not, tempered the position that he taken at the time. So he admitted to being reflective, which we would all have known anyway. As said above, lots of his positions were forced by reacting to idiots and their attempts to master him.

Modified: 06/25/2015

Biases can be good

One moral could be that if we try to be without biases (and to always deal from first principles), we easily get into states of "analysis paralysis" in which we become Congress-like (do nothingness). On the other hand, we can realize that fore-knowledge (several connotations to consider) has a lot of situational usefulness to folks who perform (or succeed or any number of other things).

---

There have been many incidents, of late (splashed across the spaces that are perturbed by news people, mainly for the sake of keeping turmoil to the maximum), that bring to the fore the fact that people process, cognitively and under the stress of handling potentially overwhelming input (senses and more), their load (from multitudinous sources) using pre-suppositions that are based upon several things: prior experience, what they've learned (redundancy, I know), superposition by a stronger mind (if you would, the influence of dominating (overbearing) persons (many types here that we'll get into eventually), and a whole lot more.

That is (and, one can argue the issue all sorts of ways), how people go through their daily lives deals a lot with what can be called "biases" (please, drop the pejorative notions (reactions, except, also be aware of your own biases), for a bit, okay?) which are helpers as much as hinder'ers.

So, let's accept that fact and spend some time looking at how this little trick helps us daily (as in, understanding the usefulness and how best to not let it carry us away).

---

By the way, the most prominent bias on the planet resides in the minds of the highly educated (we'll get there, too; however, if you look at posts in this, and the related, blogs, you'll see plenty of references to this). And, also, those types are the worse in pointing fingers at the biases of others.

Aside: please note that I said educated, and not smart (yes, the ability to ace tests is not as strongly advanced as many seem to want to think). Of course, autodidactism will be a key issue to look at.

The insidious part of those educated types is that everyone else suffers the consequences of their actions. Some little poor person's sphere of influence is much smaller (thereby, more amenable the scrutiny of more minds -- those who shield themselves behind chimeras make use of this dynamic (we'll get there, too).

Aside: if you look at the economy, and what might be called criminal activity thereof, mostly, bad behavior dealing with smaller amounts are slapped harder than those considered too big to fail (entrappers). We just saw that, up close and personal (still a problem despite the bullish aspect of the chimera's playground). Same goes for biases. Some pre-supposition that is wrapped with silly, abstracted jargon is as much a bias as is a knee-jerk reaction.

---

Now, in the context of IJCAI (International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence), there was a talk titled: Why biased minds make better inferences. In other words, being of a homo heuristicus variety is part of our nature. Also, notice that the talk uses an example related to actually doing something (as opposed to what we see in DC now, with the poloticos, who have themselves wrapped so much in their biases that they are essentially ineffectual).

Aside: as opposed to algos. But, this talk is only one of many things to discuss, so don't get hung up on arguing about this one speech. However, notice that the talk does touch upon some modern techniques (about which we have made allusions) being done by those who need to acquire some familiarity with (even respect for) the issues of quasi-empiricism.

...

This topic was mentioned in an earlier post, about Baruch. But, it needs to be more prominently seen as an important part of what truth engineering is all about. There is a lot of work to do here.

But, for now, the message is for you to exalt in your biases. Embrace them. Thank them for helping you to make it through the day. And, know that progress along the scale of human advancement (I know, all sorts of arguable points here) does not entail that you lose your biases; rather, tuning them is what we need to learn how to do.

Aside: we want to mention Bayes, and his work. Even with this data-driven process, we can have biases (expectation being of essence). Thomas must be rolling over in his grave to see all of the misuse of his ideas that are the basis for the work (actually, raking in the money) of  Zuck, and the like. But, we'll get to that to boot, as money and biases go hand in hand.

---

We'll have to pick up several threads that were left dangling (our Basis, for example).

Also, just as biases can be good, we also know that there is a down side. Unfortunately, it's that latter that gets the attention. How our biases ought to be managed (by ourselves, okay) deals very much with truth and its wonders.

Remarks:

12/31/2013 -- A popular post.

Modified: 12/31/2013

CMS, again

CMS? Yes, one has to state the context within which the acronym (assuming that is such) needs to be interpreted. So, we're talking computing but there are, at least, two ways to view this. Both important.

Earlier, we started down the content management track since Microsoft decided to remove OfficeLive users from their happy ways. In fact, some had built business processes (okay, wrong choice on their part) upon the OfficeLive stuff. These people had to scramble to find a replacement resource.

For us, OfficeLive offered nice templates and a good front end to building a website. Did I mention that it was free? So, OfficeLive going away forced me to have to get technical.

Aside: I've put together fairly productive sets of software systems on a good laptop using free software. And, the functionality rivaled what a company would pay for. And, "code" (as in what drives computation and decision making) was my focus for decades. As some have argued, it was the reality. However, prior to the content management study, I had consciously refrained from doing code. So, what could have been more interesting that code? Lots of things. Mathematics is definitely, is one doesn't go down the applied path beyond things that can be done on paper (don't laugh, we used to do algorithm testing by hand in the early days). Modeling of all sorts will always be of interest. Why? Map-territory issues will require us to revolve the virtual and the real (foregoing, for the moment, the differences between these two). One reality will the sensors (almost like QE, sensors now and forever). Wait! Google glass having a potential use beyond mere gadgetry? ... How about History? For instance, there has been a lot of effort put into historic genealogical work (say, NEHGS). There is the History that we read about in books. Then, there's the existential affair of people and details and more. What about Memes in this context? Dawkins, perhaps, tongue-in-cheek proposed the concept to handle the messy things that don't fit well into theory. But, you know what? All this fits and starts with computation, networking, and more? To me it looks like a recapitulation with all sorts of ontological underpinnings.

So, after the initial look (early 2012), I realized that I needed to get up to speed. But, I had neither the time or the interest (see comments on WordPress, Drupal, Joomla). I set up a little bit of pages using these three but was not happy with the results that I would get without a serious attempt at learning how they worked. So, what did I do? I went back to what I knew (static HTML - after all, I was doing markup prior to HTML; too, I had many website in place from the Mosaic days onward). The main problem with HTML was finding a WYSIWYG editor as I didn't want to pay for Front Page or any other commercial tool. Guess what? Sea Monkey's little Composer is nice (not perfect, by far). So, this Site is the basis for all comparisons (OfficeLive's little thing, that worked for years, disappeared).

---

Wait! What's another meaning of CMS? Configuration management. In both cases, the "s" is for system.

---

So, of late, I've realized that I let the ball drop. Too, requirements were looming that would force me to either code something (not that I couldn't, but, again time and energy are limited). So, I had to get back to the garden (I had already learned that youtube has more than nice music videos - it is nice to see things from decades ago, ah), so to speak. I had been watching classes for awhile. No structure, just following interest. One wonderful video of a mathematics class at Stanford sold me on the approach of video. As you know, all of the schools have quality items there: Harvard, MIT, etc.

So, I looked for a WordPress video. Fortunately, there was one that you could have a site up on one-hour. That video set the standard, one hour. There's no real content to the the site that I built as I followed the video. But, it's there. And, I can make comparisons with other approaches.

Not seeing what I wanted in WordPress, I went to Drupal. First off, I couldn't find a video that claimed setting up a site in one hour (Mind you, part of the time is getting the site's name, etc. I was already set up with that.). But, I made an attempt. My reaction was that it was for coders. Everywhere, it looked like I was going to have to do HTML.

So, I looked for Joomla videos. There was a one-hour site claim, using Joomla 3. I had 2.5 installed and installed the newer version. So, I followed the video religiously. Where the guy had images or text, I just made things up. Here is the first result (here is the video - again, there were highly detailed subjects being covered in other videos which I'll get back to -- the requirement was to get something running).

After the first pass, I decided to build a site that I need to maintain. To do this, I followed the video, again, but at a faster clip. Here is the result. As I tried to add new things, I've gone back to the video (have not read a line of documentation yet -- I used to read part of the book (when learning some new language) and then jump in -- or, in class, I would follow for awhile and then just explore).

By the way, part of the decision comes from seeing who is using what. Harvard and Sprint are using Joomla. I'm familiar with both sites. I know that I need to dig deeper in Joomla. Case in point: as modules have side-effects, one has to worry about order and such; these types of nuances are what an expert knows how to handle. For me? I've resolved several of these. Actually, I like the development environment (say, compared to the older ways of using a C++ or other language in a developer's workbench) and the underlying control/interpret scheme.

Aside: Last year, I sort of recoiled from the heavy database use in these approaches. That explains, in part, the fallback to HTML and files. Now, I'm getting a little more comfortable, but I'm also ready to argue the points (we'll get there, truth engineering) of configuration. You see, the package pushes talk content. Configuration control support is there. Perhaps, it's covered in the book. We'll see. However, as I've seen with all of this free stuff. You have updates and upgrades always coming at you. How things interplay must be taken seriously if you're in an environment with continual use. Who drive requirements for these things? Is it too much a gadgetry (feature) focus?

After playing with Joomla, I knew that I had to look at other approaches which are several. Concrete5 sort of jumped out. It's a front end for developers, one video said. Here is my little bit (didn't even use a video, as it seemed intuitive). I'll have to spend some time with this. And, also I'll need to look at others, to be complete.

In the meantime, I'll maintain the current site (static HTML -- blogging all the while), use Joomla as the future, and try to get the Concrete5 example to be like the Joomla. After things become more second nature, then a total redesign might be in order. Right now, I just cut stuff from the static view to the database. Perhaps, thinking about web design issues might be apropos.

Remarks:

01/21/2019 -- If you look at Content Management or CMS at this blog and the one for the Thomas Gardner Society, Inc. (CMS or Configuration), you will see lots of posts. We have a new site where we prove our work: TGSoc.org. Its role is portal but, for now, we introduce changes there, first. See the Discussion page with a link to our devlog. Based upon the direction I hear that Google is going, working this approach for our portal is right on. So, technical will be visible rather than not.

06/20/2016 -- Concrete5 example removed. Broken link in one library (at the ISP) mentioned by http://www.whoishostingthis.com/resources/php/.

05/31/2016 -- Continuation of the theme.

08/02/2014 -- Bit the bullet and updated the site (looks, behavior) using HTML/CSS. Of course, things are still pending, such as membership functions, business, ... We'll get there.

10/19/2013 -- Too many interesting things to get involved in. Is coding for the young? That is, not that the older mind cannot do it; rather, it's fairly mundane compared to other things. To be discussed. Perhaps, winters onset will push the mind toward the computational.

09/04/2013 -- While poking around more, I'm more inclined to think that the database, as a central feature, is not the great leap forward that some might think. Unless, using such is wedded with structural approaches (to be defined - unless someone can point to an existing discussion). Took a break for awhile, but did an edit in Joomla and in Concrete5, today. The latter keeps the HTML visibly present. So, that might lead one to think that it's coding, perhaps.

07/14/2013 -- I meant to mention other uses of CMS. Wiki has several that are computer related. We can't forget the Navy's CMS-2. Too, software configuration systems were known by CMS. But, there are many non-computer usages, such as Change Management System (related to process management).

07/13/2013 -- Ah, yes. design. Here is someone touting the powers of WordPress.

Modified: 01/21/2019

Entrapment

Entrapment? Yes, we're being overlaid with an insidious veil of supposed intelligence (singularities lurk). Earlier, we mentioned Eric Hoffer, as an example for us (outside the mania of consumerism, for one). Doug, the mouse guy and more, is another (was not like the current ones who are raking in billions daily for getting us further into perdition). We'll be adding to this list (Perelman, Patel, ..., lots of people).

---

We have people putting computer-based systems into processes without understanding how the two influence one another. Too, in some cases, they don't care as it pulls in the bucks (in the short term, then we have to bail them out). That's one big issue (push out the changes, make your user base adapt -- it's good for them).

Another is a map-territory problem (Google glass is only going to exacerbate the problem). You see, people get to believe that what's in the bits (such as, FB's trivia, etc.) is more real than the being itself. We'll have to go on at length about this type of mismatch. Being will (always does) win, folks, in the end.

---

We'll be seeing more of this type of thing; when will the populace wake up (suggesting that people with their feet on the ground and hands in the mud know more of this than high-flying execs of these grandiosely motivated organizations).

SSA error

AARP recently wrote of a 93-year-old, WWW II Vet who lost his Medicare coverage when someone in a SSA process updated his birthdate to an incorrect value. Then, they (SSA) had the audacity to tell him that their value was correct AND that he would have to use their value for his birth date correctly.

Naturally, the guy got irritated. As he, and his family, were working with the media (old type, not social - ah, much to say there, too) on a story about the idiocy, SSA discovered their error and apologized (as if that were enough).

Makes one think that we've forgotten GIGO as the "experts" talk about error-correcting processes, robust systems, and such (ah, entrapment, indeed).

---

All around, people have been making billions by spawning off half-systems (loaded with silly features - started early, yes Gates?) where errors, and losses, are the users' responsibility (has anyone actually quantified the bucks - trillions? - of accumulative losses from these half-witted types?). And, this witless (actually, it's a ploy to entrap) SOP has grown to proportions that are staggering.

Now, the solution going forward ought to be to have bucks devoted to 24/7 watch-dogging databases (say, watching the Equifaxes of the world) with the proviso that an error that can be certified by a human (even by phone) can be corrected (with appropriate notes and traces) quickly (with proper documentation, things can be looked at, and audited, at will - this is more than the financial folks can claim) and much more. There would be continual monitoring (many ways, not just NSA's little paranoia) by the people. Talk about jobs (yes, and this would be trainable -- look, please -- those who argue to bring in talent are looking for several things: no conscience, even less cultural attachment, reduced focus - some call this tunnel vision - so as to maximize pushing out crap, and more - yes, even though there are things like quality certification). There would be many, many jobs (see next for where the money would come from).

That is, all these billionaires are such because proper costs were not considered (near zero) in whatever the situation in which the bucks accumulated (yes, investors are problematic, to boot). In terms of cost, the populace bears the brunt in order for some to be luxuriously entertained (say, workers being screwed - too many ways to enumerate).

---

Take Equifax, for one. They could very well prevent the computational hell that is being imposed upon us. We'll get into that further, to boot.

Remarks:

07/30/2013 -- The future: economy and technology.

07/12/2013 -- Will wonders never cease? Jon knocks early-lookers?

07/12/2013 -- Comment on FB: Just read in the WSJ of a growing presence of a shadow "Supreme Court" (details to be discussed via blog). Think of it: police, judge, jury, executioner, mortician (and all the other roles) all rolled up unto one secretive group(s). Kings and feudal lords (slave owners) come to mind; but, do we have those nowadays? 

Then, we have shadow banking (its size is probably multiples of what gets caught under accounting's purview - Ben knows this). We have banks using hackers to stress their systems (what shadow activities can arise from that? - the Internet did not have to unfold like it did).

We have shadow government (supposedly handled by open-door policies). And, shadow business is cloaked under those leg-irons called non-disclosure agreements that are required for employment (makes working for oneself attractive, even if such causes one's life to border on poverty). The market addicts (those who go gaga (apologies to the Lady G) when Ben goes goo-goo) want their dark pools, and more.

Shadows are everywhere (no conspiracy paranoia intended, or unintended). USA Today talked about the shadow credit ratings (yes, the silly number that we get to see if not it, folks - that is, those who decide your fate look at their own little bit of stuff). The Big-3, and such ilk, need more scrutiny.

Well, shadows are real, to the extent of their natural properties. We have to deal with them. But, the rise of the computer (and its offspring - web, etc.) is raising the bar (for the bad guys - lowering it for we, the people) by changing the context of shadows (poorly understood at this time) in ways only hinted at by early concepts, such as undecidability.

Happy Friday thoughts.

07/11/2013 -- In a sense, Ben is trapped into the expectations of the addicts. Yes, there are several factors involved with this. Poor guy. Yet, for the rest of us, like the savers who are being tortured, we'll have to endure this idiocy for whatever time it takes. Yet, entrapment is making things worse day by day.

07/09/2013 -- How will we get the proper mind set to counter the web that binds? Is it trainable or existential (study dedicated to GEK III)? Some ask if the lack of accountability, or the observed absence of notions of responsibility, are major factors. Yes, there are aspects to this problem that come out of our humanness, worked over and over as generations pile up on life's shore. However, the larger problem is that the presumption behind many worldviews dealing with technology is that we understand more than we actually do. That latter overlaps partly with the concepts behind quasi-empiricism. ... Money, as truth, muddies the water, to boot.

Modified: 07/30/2013

Closer to Truth

In the last post, I mentioned an autodidact (Eric). Those types like to learn (which is not life-long learning, folks) in a self-directed manner. I am going to use him across all of the blogs (for instance, Eric lived simply; he did not have a mansion, large car, etc. -- yet, he is of the type that I've talked about where we could run finance better than it is now). That task is still pending.

---

Let me, first, re-introduce an important concept (mentioned here many times): quasi-empirical arguments. Wikipedia has a nice write up on the subject, for starters. See this 7'oops7 post on motivation.

---

Truth,
even big T' aspects

I ran across "Closer to truth" today and wanted to get it brought to the fore. In one of the videos that I saw, Wolfram talked about his ideas on an oft-debated mathematical topic: is it invented or discovered?

You see, if the former, how could one be other than quasi-empirically oriented? From my own experience and from many comments that I've read, some practitioners (of the teaching ilk) seem to assume the latter which is accessible to special types of minds (which may be partly so - another topic of interest, as Truth is available to all).

One has to pop out to about 7:45 on the video for the quasi-empirical portion - or listen to that point to hear the preparatory matters). I've referenced Wolfram before (other contexts); it's nice that he understands the limits (perhaps, his computational focus brings this to the fore).

I'll be getting back to this topic, in the the context of computability in the world, and more.

---

This is one example video; I expect that there will be more to use (and big "T" Truth is covered, to boot, by the series).

Remarks:

05/21/2013 -- Penrose has a good take on the question. Mathematics, in so far as its involved with nature, was there long before humans came around. The humans are those who are the inventors of mathematics? Sounds silly, right? Of course, one has to note the different connotations of "mathematics". Humans worked out the language aspect (how the essence is conveyed and shared), no doubt, over a long period of time.

Modified: 05/21/2013

Eric Hoffer

The longshoreman philosopher. He is on the list of notable autodidacts (a category to which I would like to belong).

---

This post is going to be put on the three related blogs (Truth Engineering, 7'oops7, FEDaerated [already mentioned in the context of autodidactism]) each post tailored to the context of the blog's theme) indicating a change of tone and of focus. I was in San Francisco during the time (1967-70) when Eric walked the streets, pondering matters, and ran across him from time to time. His most popular book was a nice read but did not resonate with me (those T-issues [Anselm as an example] that cause so many problems; these are best skirted around many times (mind you, did not say ignore entirely)), however I have always respected the guy and his work.

---

This itinerant citizen saw more of the American experience than did 99.999% of his cohorts and those of subsequent times.  And, he was 1st generation. It is probably fortunate that he ended up on San Francisco (where the song writer left his heart). I would bet that Eric did not associate much (if at all) with the beat view (which, if you look at it closely, are of the fortunate sons [thanks, CCR] - wait, there I go again [by character, cannot guarantee descending into the mocking stance which has become so prevalent -- why is that?]).

We'll go on about the travels of Eric from time to time. For instance, he spent several years in skid row of Los Angeles. I worked at the Union Rescue Mission (early 1960s; recently, I looked at the website and was saddened to hear that now they're dealing with families - not older, derelict men) for a couple of years.

---

If the USA is going to mean something, it won't be via military might (if I add, not by that alone, will you keep off the reflexive hero worship thing that forces many to rant interminably?). Rather, this country has many ways to continue (or to try to attempt) to be the "city on the hill" (if only John Winthrop knew). People like Eric [and many other types, but not financial pirates] will be key.

Too, his self-learning was important. How does one test the knowledge of such types? Well, truth engineering will deal with that. To boot, the independent view that we all need [the inverse of this view is the politician whose saliva kicks in at the sight of (or the thought of) a buck (or any other money) -- there I go again, except I'm waiting to see how Elizabeth W. pans out [a note arrived today with the subject that she needs a partner])] was one of Eric's many qualities.

---

This is only a start. Let's not forget Eric (Jul 1902 to May 1983) and his kind.

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.

05/14/2013 -- Capitalism magazine published, 10 years ago, Thomas Sowell's The Legacy of Eric Hopper.  Praise be the Internet!

Modified: 07/09/2013