On 1/31/25 1:20 PM, glen wrote:
So even though you understand my basic point of [ab]use and the
tolerance of error or tolerance of ambiguity, I'm not hearing any
recognition of schematic systems in your responses. It's fine, of
course. It would be reasonable to take the absence of my language in
your responses as an implicit rejection of the game I'm trying to
define. In fact, I kinda hope that's the case because I enjoy that
kind of subtle game play. But just in case it's not ...
The in general, observation bias, and in specific, schematic bias, I'm
pointing to cf. multiverse analysis (pluralism) versus either
parsimony or complicatedness (monism) won't be understood without
understanding what it means to be schematic in one's "calibration". In
perhaps obsolete terminology, it amounts to requirements analysis with
predicates like "must have" versus "nice to have" versus "don't care",
etc.
The easy answer is that I'm probably just entirely over my head in this
conversation.
I was focused (perhaps) mostly on your original opening line about
parsimony being a red herring. If I doubled down on the miter saw
calibrationexample, it was because I thought you were willfully
misunderstanding or ignoring the specifics of the example. If I can
recast it into "the schematic" (scare quotes to acknowledge I may be
misunderstanding the concept in some fundamental way) then the issue
might be to reframe the problem from "cutting at a specific angle" to
"cutting two pieces at complementary angles which sum to the orthogonal
to support a specific type of joinery within a specific range of
constructions where orthogonality has specific value"?
Attempting to understand you more better, I will focus here on what you
call the "schematic". If I understand you correctly, my EC registration
example *was* schematic? I'm lost when you equate (relate?)
"complicatedness" to monism? In this case monism as a single unified
theory with plurality being it's complement or opposite. I am used to
this list arguing monism vs dualism (without my own dog in the fight) so
probably didn't appreciate the nuance there. In fact I think my lack
of a dog in the monist/dualist fight is that (I think) I'm pretty
pluralist at my core. But maybe my words or behaviour say otherwise.
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ...
--- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
